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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 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 17 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. Since line 7 recites “at least one opening”, which is defined as having one opening within the claim; the recitation in lines 8 and 12 of “each of the at least one opening” implies there are more than one opening being claimed therein, thus renders the claim indefinite for failing to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AT 508160 (hereinafter AT ‘160).
AT ‘160 discloses (Claim 1). A furniture fitting to be mounted to a furniture part 27, the furniture fitting comprising (such as shown in Figs. 4a-4b & 10): a base body 11, and an actuating member 26 movable relative to the base body 11, wherein the base body 11 includes a fastening portion 12 having a fastening side to at least partially bear against the furniture part 27 when the furniture fitting is mounted to the furniture part 27, the fastening portion including an opening 13 for allowing the passage of a fastener, wherein the opening 13 is surrounded by a bulge 14 projecting transversely from a second side of the fastening portion 12 spaced apart from the fastening side by a material thickness of the fastening portion 12, and wherein the fastening side of the fastening portion 12 has a circular recess (see attached marked-up copy of Fig. 4b) adjacent to the opening 13 for at least partially receiving arising chip material, the circular recess having a symmetrical circular shape formed around the opening 13;
PNG
media_image1.png
518
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the bulge has a torus-shaped cross-section; (Claim 4). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the bulge 14 and the fastening portion 12 are formed together so as to have an integral one-piece configuration; (Claim 5). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the bulge 14 is an embossed bulge; (Claim 6). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the fastening portion includes a reinforcement bead (see attached marked-up copy of Fig. 4a), wherein the at least one opening 13 is arranged adjacent to the at least one reinforcement bead; (Claim 9). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the furniture fitting is a drawer pull-out guide for movably supporting a drawer 29 on a furniture carcass 28; (Claim 10). The furniture fitting according to claim 9, wherein the drawer pull-out guide includes a carcass rail 11 to be fixed to a furniture carcass 28 of the furniture part 27, and a drawer rail 26 to be connected to the drawer 29 and displaceable relative to the carcass rail 11 in a longitudinal direction, wherein the carcass rail 11 includes the fastening portion 12; (Claim 11). The furniture fitting according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the carcass rail 11 and the drawer rail 26 has a cross-sectional profile formed of a flat sheet metal having two longitudinal edges extending parallel to each other, wherein the profile has a foldover on at least one of the two longitudinal edges, the foldover having at least a doubled material thickness (see attached marked-up copy of Fig. 4a); (Claim 12). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the base body 11 is made of a metal sheet; (Claim 13). The furniture fitting according to claim 1, wherein the opening 13 has a circular shape, and the fastener to be passed through the opening is a screw.
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) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT ‘160 in view of USP 10314398 to Bowman et al (hereinafter Bowman).
AT ‘160 discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations in claims 3 and 14.
However, Bowman discloses a furniture fitting configured to be mounted to at least one furniture part, the furniture fitting comprising: at least one base body, at least one actuating member movable relative to the base body, wherein the at least one base body includes at least one fastening portion; a protruding element 19 and a low-profile element 18; wherein the protruding element 19 and the low-profile element 18 have a thickness between 0.5 and 2mm (col. 2, lines 31-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious and well within the level of one skilled in the art, in view of Bowman, to modify AT ‘160 to include the limitations in Claim 3 of wherein the fastening portion has a material thickness of between 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm, and Claim 14 of wherein the material thickness is 0.7 mm with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the furniture fitting.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT ‘160 in view of USP 1545016 to Sessions.
AT ‘160 discloses all the elements as discussed above except for the limitations in claim 7.
However, Sessions discloses a furniture fitting to be mounted to a furniture part 6, the furniture fitting comprising (such as shown in Figs. 1-3): a base body, wherein the base body includes a fastening portion 9 having a fastening side to at least partially bear against the furniture part 6 when the furniture fitting is mounted to the furniture part 6, the fastening portion 9 including an opening 11 for allowing the passage of a fastener, wherein the fastening portion 9 includes at least two reinforcement beads 14 spaced apart from each other, the opening 11 being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads 14 (such as shown in Figs. 2-3).
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 Sessions, to modify AT ‘160 to include the limitations in Claim 7 of wherein the fastening portion includes at least two reinforcement beads spaced apart from each other, the opening being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the furniture fitting.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT ‘160 in view of WO 2019/119004 to Meusburger.
AT ‘160 discloses (Claim 17). A furniture fitting to be mounted to a furniture part 27, the furniture fitting comprising (such as shown in Figs. 4a-4b & 10): a base body 11, and an actuating member 26 movable relative to the base body 11, wherein the base body 11 includes a fastening portion 12 having a fastening side to at least partially bear against the furniture part 27 when the furniture fitting is mounted to the furniture part 27, the fastening portion including at least one opening 13 for allowing the passage of a fastener, wherein each of the at least one opening 13 is surrounded by a bulge 14 projecting transversely from a second side of the fastening portion 12 spaced apart from the fastening side by a material thickness of the fastening portion 12.
The differences being that AT ‘160 fails to clearly disclose the limitations in Claim 17 of wherein the fastening portion 12 includes at least two reinforcement beads spaced apart from each other, exactly one of the at least one opening being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads.
However, Sessions discloses a furniture fitting to be mounted to a furniture part 6, the furniture fitting comprising (such as shown in Figs. 1-3): a base body, wherein the base body includes a fastening portion 9 having a fastening side to at least partially bear against the furniture part 6 when the furniture fitting is mounted to the furniture part 6, the fastening portion 9 including an opening 11 for allowing the passage of a fastener, wherein the fastening portion 9 includes at least two reinforcement beads 14 spaced apart from each other, the opening 11 being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads 14 (such as shown in Figs. 2-3).
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 Sessions, to modify AT ‘160 to include the limitations in Claim 17 of wherein the fastening portion 12 includes at least two reinforcement beads spaced apart from each other, exactly one of the at least one opening being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the furniture fitting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, and 18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments on page 8 by referencing Figs. 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3b, and 3c of AT ‘160, the examiner respectfully take the position that, as clearly stated in the claim rejection, Figs. 4a, 4b and 10 are being used. Therefore, applicant’s arguments on page 8 by referencing Figs. 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3b, and 3c of AT ‘160 are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 8, 2nd paragraph, regarding recesses 7 on the fastening side extending along a straight line in the longitudinal direction of the fastening portion as shown in Figs. 4a, 4b of AT ‘160, the examiner respectfully take the position that Figs. 4a and 4b are drawn to a different embodiment, and does not disclose recesses 7, as alleged by the applicant.
In response to applicant’s arguments on page 8, 2nd paragraph, that the recesses 7 of AT ‘160 do not have a symmetrical circular shape, the examiner respectfully take the position that Figs. 4a-4b of AT ‘160 discloses pronounced regions 14 to produce flank 15 of a countersunk hole 13 to receive a screw. Therefore, the fastening side of the fastening portion 12 has a circular recess (see the above-attached marked-up copy of Fig. 4b) adjacent to the opening 13 for at least partially receiving arising chip material, the circular recess having a symmetrical circular shape formed around the opening 13, as claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 regarding claim 17, the examiner respectfully take the position that (i) Figs. 4a-4b of AT ‘160 discloses each of the at least one opening 13 is surrounded by a bulge 14 projecting transversely from a second side of the fastening portion 12 spaced apart from the fastening side by a material thickness of the fastening portion 12, and (ii) Sessions discloses the fastening portion 9 includes at least two reinforcement beads 14 spaced apart from each other, the opening 11 being arranged between the at least two reinforcement beads 14 (such as shown in Figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
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
October 10, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights