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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/26 has been entered.
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 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 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) 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesenbeck et al.(DE202009003459).
[claim 17] Loesenbeck teaches a drawer pull-out guide(fig 7) for movably supporting a drawer on a furniture carcass(ABS), the drawer pull-out guide comprising: a carcass rail(2”) configured to be fixed to the furniture carcass(3), a drawer rail(4”) configured to be connected to the drawer, the drawer rail being displaceably supported relative to the carcass rail in a longitudinal direction, wherein the carcass rail is formed of only a single flat metal sheet(fig 7B), the carcass rail, in a cross-section extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, includes at least one profile(fig 7B) defined by the only one single flat sheet metal having two longitudinal edges extending parallel to each other. Loesenbeck further teaches an embodiment(fig 3c) where the at least one profile of the carcass rail, on at least one longitudinal edge, includes at least one foldover having at least a doubled material thickness(at 53 in fig 3c). Loesenbeck teaches a drawer pull-out guide as detailed above, where the carcass rail includes at least one fastening portion(portion of 2” with apertures, as seen in fig 7A) having a fastening side configured to bear at least partially against the furniture carcass when the carcass rail is mounted to the furniture carcass. Loesenbeck however may not teach that the at least one fastening portion of the carcass rail includes a foldover arranged on the longitudinal edge, the at least one foldover being configured to bear against the furniture carcass. Loesenbeck however does teach the use of foldovers on the carcass rail(see fig 3c), the foldovers providing increased strength and stiffness when compared to regions without a foldover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a foldover on the fastening portion of the carcass rail of the embodiment shown in figure 7A as well, as this would provide increased strength and stiffness to the device.
[claim 20] Loesenbeck teaches a drawer pull-out guide(fig 1) for movably supporting a drawer on a furniture carcass(ABS), the drawer pull-out guide comprising: a carcass rail(2) configured to be fixed to the furniture carcass(3), a drawer rail(4) configured to be connected to the drawer, the drawer rail being displaceably supported relative to the carcass rail in a longitudinal direction, at least one rolling body(8) wherein the carcass rail or the drawer rail, in a cross-section extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, includes at least one profile(fig 3c) defined by at least one flat sheet metal having two longitudinal edges extending parallel to each other, the at least one profile of the carcass rail or the drawer rail, on at least one longitudinal edge, includes at least one foldover having at least a doubled material thickness(at 53 in fig 3c), the at least one foldover, in the cross section extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, includes at least one kink(bend at connection to portion 56 in fig 3c) extending in the longitudinal direction, and the at least one rolling body is displaceable at least over a region(along tracks 6,7 formed in the foldover) along the at least one foldover in the longitudinal direction. Loesenbeck however may not teach that the at least one kink has the at least doubled material thickness. As noted above, Loesenbeck teaches using a foldover having a doubled material thickness on the carcass rail, which would provide additional strength to the doubled thickness portion of the rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation, to use doubled material thickness on additional parts of the rail, such as on the kink, to provide additional strength to the rail, as this would merely be using known elements for their known functions.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loesenbeck et al.(DE202009003459) in view of Meusburger et al(US20200187648) and further in view of Milligan(US6854816).
[claim 18] Loesenbeck teaches a drawer pull-out guide(fig 1) for movably supporting a drawer on a furniture carcass(ABS), the drawer pull-out guide comprising: a carcass rail(2) configured to be fixed to the furniture carcass(3), a drawer rail(4) configured to be connected to the drawer, the drawer rail being displaceably supported relative to the carcass rail in a longitudinal direction, wherein the carcass rail or the drawer rail, in a cross-section extending perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, includes at least one profile(fig 3c) defined by at least one flat sheet metal having two longitudinal edges extending parallel to each other, the at least one profile of the carcass rail or the drawer rail, on at least one longitudinal edge, includes at least one foldover having at least a doubled material thickness(at 53 in fig 3c). Loesenbeck however may not teach that the carcass rail includes a first reinforcement bead and a second reinforcement bead, and exactly one opening defined in the carcass rail between the first reinforcement bead and the second reinforcement bead and the exactly one opening, on a second side spaced apart from a fastening side by a material thickness of a fastening portion of the carcass rail, is surrounded by a bulge projection transversely from the second side.
With regards to the reinforcement beads, Meusburger teaches a similar drawer pull-out guide, and further teaches the use of a carcass rail(9) first and second reinforcement beads(A and B in annotated fig 3 below) with exactly one opening defined between the first and second reinforcement beads. The beads adding strength to the rail, while the opening allows for the receipt of a fastener to secure the rail to a furniture carcass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the reinforcement beads and opening of Meusburger with the drawer pull-out guide of Loesenbeck, as this would provide increased strength to the carcass rail, and a means for securing the rail to a furniture carcass, as taught by Meusburger.
With regards to the bulge, the use of bulges or ribs around fastener openings is well known in the art to provide increased strength to the aperture. Milligan teaches a similar guide rail, which uses bulges(167 fig 7) around fastener openings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a bulge projecting transversely from the second side of the carcass rail of Loesenbeck in view of Meusburger, as this would provide increased strength to the opening, as taught by Milligan.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 and 18 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Loesenbeck does not teach “at least one rolling body displaceable at least over a region along the at least one foldover in the longitudinal direction” as recited in amended claim 20. The examiner disagrees, as seen in figures 2A-2C of Loesenbeck, the rollers(8) are displaceable along guide tracks(6,7) that extend through the foldover and along a longitudinal direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 19 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights