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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15: since claim 1 recites “folding the metal sheet…to form a fold”, the limitations in claim 15 of “wherein the at least one carcass rail…to form a fold” renders the claim indefinite for failing to clearly define whether this fold is the same or different from the fold of claim 1, thus fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 15-16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0002008 to Domenig et al (hereinafter Domenig) in view of USP 10314398 to Bowman et al (hereinafter Bowman) and DE 102007018927 to Schmidtke.
Domenig discloses (Claim 1). A method for producing a rail for a drawer pull-out guide, the method comprising: providing a flat metal sheet ([0029]) having a longitudinal extent, a top surface, a bottom surface, and two lateral surfaces spaced apart by a width of the metal sheet as a semifinished product of the rail, folding the metal sheet in a region which includes at least one of the two lateral surfaces to form a fold (defined by at least one of 8 and 11), the profile having at least one embossing 13 for reinforcing the profile; (Claim 12). A drawer pull-out guide for movably mounting a drawer on a furniture carcass, comprising: (such as shown in Figs. 4a-4b) at least one carcass rail to be fastened to the furniture carcass; and at least one drawer rail, which is mounted so as to be displaceable relative to the at least one carcass rail in a longitudinal direction, and which is to be connected to the drawer, wherein the at least one carcass rail or the at least one drawer rail is produced using a method according to claim 1, and in a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, has a profile formed out of the flat metal sheet, wherein the profile of the at least one carcass rail has the at least one embossing 13 for reinforcing the profile and the fold (defined by at least one of 8 and 11) at the at least one of the two lateral surfaces; (Claim 15). The drawer pull-out guide according to claim 12, wherein the at least one carcass rail or the at least one drawer rail is folded in a region of at least one profile surface of the profile to form a fold (defined by at least one of 8 and 11); (Claim 20). The drawer pull-out guide according to claim 12, wherein: the at least one embossing 13 extends over at least two substantially orthogonal surfaces of the profile.
The differences being that Domenig fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) Claim 1 of wherein the metal sheet has a wall thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; (ii) Claim 1 of forming at least one indentation on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces, wherein the at least one indentation is arranged transverse to the longitudinal extent, bending the metal sheet such that, in a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal extent, a profile of the rail is formed, snapping off the bent metal sheet in a region of the at least one indentation to form the rail for the drawer pull-out guide; (iii) Claims 2-5, 8-9, 13, 16, 19; (iv) Claim 6; (v) Claims 10-11 and 18; (vi) Claim 12 of wherein the at least one indentation includes an indentation formed at each of opposite longitudinal end surfaces of the profile, wherein the bent metal sheet is snapped off at both longitudinal end surfaces of the profile, and wherein both of the longitudinal end surfaces of the profile of the at least one carcass rail or of the at least one drawer rail are formed with a taper; (vii) claim 21; and (viii) the method steps recited in the claims.
Regarding (i) and (iv), Bowman discloses a drawer pull-out guide 1 for movably mounting a drawer on a furniture carcass, comprising at least one carcass rail 2 to be fastened to the furniture carcass and at least one drawer rail 3, which is mounted displaceable relative to the at least one carcass rail 2 in a longitudinal direction, to be connected to the drawer, wherein the at least one carcass rail and/or the at least one drawer rail, in a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, has a profile formed out of at least one flat metal sheet; wherein the metal sheet has a wall thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm (col. 2, lines 31-36), the metal sheet is provided, preferably by at least one embossing and/or at least one embossing 15; wherein the profile has at least one embossing 15, preferably oriented orthogonally on the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet, for reinforcing the profile, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one embossing extends over at least two substantially orthogonal surfaces of the profile.
Regarding (ii), (iii), and (vi), Schmidtke discloses a method for producing at least one component part (pipe and profile sections are needed in the automotive, furniture, plumping and heating and cooling industry), comprising: a flat metallic sheet with a longitudinal extent, the metal sheet is provided at least one indentation on the top and bottom surfaces, wherein the at least one indentation is arranged transverse to the longitudinal extent; wherein the sheet comprises with two indentations lying opposite one another, lying one above the other orthogonally in one direction; wherein the bent metal sheet is mechanically separated, preferably snapped, particularly preferably cracked and split, in the region of the at least one indentation; wherein the at least one component part is formed with a substantially burr-free taper on at least one, preferably two, end surfaces of the profile, wherein it is preferably provided that the taper has a taper cross section parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet substantially in the shape of a, preferably isosceles, triangle, wherein the taper cross section is particularly preferably formed convex and/or concave; wherein the bent metal sheet, in the region of the at least one indentation, is broken without a separating cut, without punching and without cutting scrap, wherein the at least one indentation is utilized as a predetermined breaking point while cracking the bent metal sheet, wherein it is preferably provided that the at least one component part is formed without postprocessing; wherein the at least one indentation is introduced into the metal sheet in the shape of a groove or a profiling with an opening angle in the range between 40° and 140°, preferably between 75° and 105°, particularly preferably of substantially 90; wherein the at least one indentation has a notch cross section parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet in the shape of a triangle, a trapezoid, a segment of an ellipse and/or a segment of a circle; wherein the metal sheet is provided with a plurality of indentations arranged in pairs on the two top surfaces and then a plurality of component parts are mechanically snapped off; wherein the taper includes an angle in the range between 60° and 140°, preferably between 75° and 105°, particularly preferably of substantially 90°, wherein it is preferably provided that at least one, preferably both, end surfaces are formed substantially burr-free; wherein the at least one taper has a taper cross section parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet substantially in the shape of a, preferably isosceles, triangle, wherein it is preferably provided that the taper cross section is formed convex and/or concave.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Bowman and Schmidtke, to modify Domenig to include the limitations in (i) Claim 1 of wherein the metal sheet has a wall thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; (ii) Claim 1 of forming at least one indentation on at least one of the top and bottom surfaces, wherein the at least one indentation is arranged transverse to the longitudinal extent, bending the metal sheet such that, in a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal extent, a profile of the rail is formed, snapping off the bent metal sheet in a region of the at least one indentation to form the rail for the drawer pull-out guide; (iii) Claims 2-5, 8-9, 11, 13, 16, 19: Claim 2 of wherein the at least one indentation connects the two lateral surfaces of the metal sheet or the at least one indentation comprises at least two indentations lying opposite one another, one of the at least two indentations being arranged on the top surface of the metal sheet and another of the at least two indentations being arranged on the bottom surface of the metal sheet; Claim 3 of wherein the forming of the at least one indentation comprises forming a first indentation on the top surface of the metal sheet and forming a second indentation on the bottom surface of the metal sheet such that the first and second indentations are arranged on above the other, and in the snapping off of the bent metal sheet, the bent metal sheet is snapped off at the first and second indentations; Claim 4 of wherein the rail is formed with a substantially burr-free taper on at least one end surface of the profile; Claim 5 of wherein snapping off of the bent metal sheet includes breaking the bent metal sheet in the region of the at least one indentation without a separating cut, without punching and without cutting scrap, and wherein the at least one indentation is utilized as a predetermined breaking point while breaking the bent metal sheet; Claim 8 of wherein the at least one indentation is introduced into the metal sheet in the shape of a groove or a profiling with an opening angle in the range between 40° and 140°; Claim 9 of wherein the at least one indentation has a notch cross section parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet in the shape of a triangle, a trapezoid, a segment of an ellipse or a segment of a circle; Claim 13 of wherein each taper includes an angle in the range between 60° and 140°; Claim 16 of wherein each taper has a taper cross section parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet substantially in the shape of a triangle; Claim 19 of wherein the taper has a taper cross section which is parallel to the longitudinal extent of the metal sheet, and which is substantially in the shape of an isosceles triangle or is formed convex or concave; (iv) Claim 6: Claim 6 of wherein the metal sheet has a wall thickness in the range of 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility as well as strength of the drawer pull-out guide.
Regarding (v) Claims 10-11 and 18, since Domenig, as modified, discloses providing the component part with multiple indentations, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Domenig, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 10 of wherein the forming of the at least one indentation comprises forming exactly four indentations arranged as two pairs on the top and bottom surfaces, each pair including a first indentation arranged on the top surface and a second indentation arranged on the bottom surface and lying opposite the first indentation, and wherein the snaping off of the bent metal sheet includes snapping the bent metal sheet twice via the two pairs of indentations so as to form the rail; Claim 11 of wherein the forming of the at least one indentation comprises forming a plurality of indentations arranged in pairs on the top and bottom surfaces of the metal sheet, each pair of indentations including a first indentation arranged on the top surface and a second indentation arranged on the bottom surface and lying in opposite the first indentation, and the snapping off of the bent metal sheet comprises snapping off a plurality of portions of the bent metal sheet so as to form a plurality of rails; Claim 18 of wherein the forming of the at least one indentation comprises forming a plurality of indentations, and the snapping off of the bent metal sheet includes snapping off a plurality of portions of the bent metal sheet so as to form a plurality of rails for drawer pull-out guides from the same semifinished product with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility as well as strength of the drawer pull-out guide.
Regarding (vi), it is well-known in the art that a carcass rail or a drawer rail has two ends; therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Domenig, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 12 of wherein the at least one indentation includes an indentation formed at each of opposite longitudinal end surfaces of the profile, wherein the bent metal sheet is snapped off at both longitudinal end surfaces of the profile, and wherein both of the longitudinal end surfaces of the profile of the at least one carcass rail or of the at least one drawer rail are formed with a taper with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility as well as strength of the drawer pull-out guide.
Regarding (vii) claim 21, since Domenig, as modified, comprises the limitations of snapping off of the bent metal sheet, and it is well-known that snapping off would include cracking and splitting, Domenig, as modified, would meet the limitations in claim 21 of wherein the snapping off of the bent metal sheet comprises cracking and splitting the bent metal sheet in the region of the at least one indentation to form the rail for the drawer pull-out guide.
Regarding (viii) the method steps recited in the claims, since Domenig, as modified, discloses all the structural elements recited in the claims, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Domenig, as modified, would be able to perform the method steps recited therein with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the drawer pull-out guide.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domenig, as modified, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of AT 508160 (hereinafter AT ‘160).
Domenig, as modified, discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations recited in claim 14.
However, AT ‘160 discloses a drawer pull-out guide for movably mounting a drawer on a furniture carcass, comprising: a carcass rail; wherein the carcass rail has at least one fastening portion with a fastening side which, during installation on the furniture carcass or at least one furniture part, can be brought to rest against the furniture carcass or the at least one furniture part at least in portions, wherein the at least one fastening portion has at least one, preferably circular, opening 6 for a fastening means, preferably a screw, to pass through, wherein the at least one opening 6, on a second side spaced apart from the fastening side by a material thickness of the fastening portion, preferably of between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm, particularly preferably between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm, is surrounded by a ridge 14 (such as shown in Fig. 4a-b) which protrudes transversely from the second side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of AT ‘160, to modify Zhan, as modified, to include the limitations in Claim 14 of wherein the at least one carcass rail or the at least one drawer rail has at least one fastening portion with a fastening side which is configured to be brought to rest at least partially against the furniture carcass or the drawer, wherein the at least one fastening portion has at least one opening for a fastening means to pass through, and wherein the at least one opening, on a second side spaced apart from the fastening side by a material thickness of the fastening portion is surrounded by a ridge which protrudes transversely from the second side with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility as well as strength of the drawer pull-out guide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument on page 8 that it would not have been obvious to incorporate a less precise process such as the snapping off process of Schmidtke into the well-established process of manufacturing drawer pull-out guides for precise lengths, the examiner respectfully take the position that it is not clear why the snapping off process would provide a drawer pull-out guide having a less precise length.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 9, first full paragraph, the examiner respectfully take the position that Domenig, as modified in view of the teaching of Schmidtke, clearly meets the limitations of folding the metal sheet in a region which includes at least one of the two lateral surfaces to form a fold (defined by at least one of 8 and 11 of Domenig), and bending the metal sheet such that, in a cross section orthogonal to the longitudinal extent, a profile of the rail is formed, the profile having at least one embossing (element 13 of Domenig) for reinforcing the profile.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Zhan have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 10, first full paragraph, the examiner respectfully take the position that Domenig, as modified, meets the limitations in claim 12 of “the bent metal sheet is snapped off at both longitudinal end surfaces of the profile, wherein the profile of the at least one carcass rail or of the at least one drawer rail has the at least one embossing for reinforcing the profile and the fold at the at least one of the two lateral surfaces”, as stated in the above rejection to claim 12.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 21, the examiner respectfully take the position that the limitation “cracking and splitting” fails to provide adequate structural limitations in order to distinguish from the prior art of record. More specifically, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “cracking” would be breaking, splitting, or snapping apart, and “splitting” would be dividing, forcing or tearing apart. Therefore, Domenig, as modified in view of Schmidtke, clearly meets said limitations.
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.
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 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.
HVT
March 30, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights