DETAILED ACTION
Specification
Applicants proposed amendments to the specification, filed August 20, 2025, have been reviewed and approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/044032. WO`032 teaches of a slide system (figures 1-12 for instance) comprising a first slide member (such as (10) for instance) having a slide surface ((14) for instance) at least partly coated with a lipophilic composition coating ((18) for instance) to provide a slide layer (19) with lowered friction; and a second slide member (such as (20) for instance) arranged in sliding contact with the slide layer at an interface to provide a slide system, wherein the interface between the slide layer and the second slide member forms a plain bearing (claim 29) to allow for sliding movement of the second slide member and the first slide member relative to each other (shown and disclosed); wherein at least the slide surface of the first slide member is made of a rigid material (such as aluminum), and wherein at least a part of the second slide member being in sliding contact with the slide layer is made of a plastic material (plastic comprising a polymer), wherein the materials being different. WO`032 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined above, but does not show the material of the first slide member being a plastic, and one that is different than the plastic used to form the second slide member. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a varying array of known materials for the manufacture of the first slide member (such as any of the known types of plastics readily available), with a reasonable expectation of success, depending upon the personal preferences of the designer and/or the designated environment for the finished product since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The selection of a specific type of plastic relative to a component is no more than "the simple substitution of one known material for another” where a known material characteristic may provide enhanced properties for a particular component within an assembly, wherein the prior art component material was ready for improvement, and thus the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). As modified, the plastic slide surface of the first slide member can be coated directly with the lipophilic composition since there would be no need for a lacquered layer (16) on the plastic polymer material. The lacquered layer with a resin is used primarily to coat a metal material in order to seat or prep the metal surface for adhering the friction reducing coating. No such application of a lacquered layer is necessary when the coating is applied to a slide member of plastic material, and thus the subsequent removal of the lacquered layer when utilizing a plastic first slide member would be an obvious omission to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the second plastic is a thermoplastic (such as a thermoplastic polyester). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the first and the second plastics can be polymers selected from the group of polymers consisting of polyoxymethylenes (POM), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polypropylene (PP), polypropylene copolymers (PPCO), thermoplastic polyesters, polyamides (PA), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), and Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (all disclosed on page labeled “17” of the disclosure). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the second slide member is made of polyamide (PA), polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polypropylene copolymers (PPCO), or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (as disclosed), and the first slide member can be made of polyoxymethylene (POM) or polyamide (PA), with the first slide member being made of a different plastic than the second slide member. Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the first slide member can be made of polyamide (PA) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), while the second slide member is made of polyoxymethylene (POM) (all these materials are disclosed as available options). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the first slide member can be a slide bar forming a linear slide profile (such as shown in fig. 6 for instance), with the slide bar being a plastic slide bar made of the first plastic. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the plastic slide bar forming the linear slide profile is provided with a plastic profile surface arranged on a support structure (such as (150) or inherent upper and lower walls / panels of a wardrobe). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the plastic slide bar has the form of an insert to be arranged in a recess of the support structure (such as shown in fig. 5c for instance). Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the plastic slide bar would be moulded as is conventionally known, additionally, the method of forming a component of a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself within a product claim; therefore, the limitation has not been given patentable weight. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the second slide member would be moulded in one piece as is conventionally known (see note above). Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the slide surface of the first slide member is identified as a “lacquered slide surface”, but does not give a measurement of at least 150 pm thick (for the slide surface alone, i.e., without including the lacquer / resin coating thickness). However, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of a component so as to encompass several thickness ranges as dependent upon the needs or preferences of a user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the part of the second slide member being in contact with the slide layer of the slide surface is configured as at least one blade (such as (21) for instance) extending in a sliding direction. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the slide layer is present at a track (shown in the figures), extending along a sliding direction. Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the second slide member comprises at least one individual contact point (disclosed as a “contact point”), in the form of the at least one blade, in contact with the first slide member at the interface between the first slide member and the second slide member, the contact area of each individual contact point being less than 3 mm2 (page labeled 16). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the first slide member and the second slide member of the slide system are provided in a sliding application of a furniture (such as a sliding door arrangement) in which the slide system is carrying a load of less than 35 kg (such as a sliding door having a total weight of 8.5 kg). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the first slide member and the second slide member of the slide system are provided in a sliding door system (sliding door arrangement). Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the lipophilic composition coating comprises compounds comprising C6 to C40 non-aromatic hydrocarbyl groups (note page labeled as 11 and claims 16-17 for instance). Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the lipophilic composition coating comprises at least 25 wt.% C6 to C40, non-aromatic hydrocarbons (claim 17 for instance). Regarding Claim 19, as modified, the lipophilic composition comprises triglycerides and/or fatty acids (claim 18 for instance). Regarding Claim 20, as modified, a method is providing for the slide system comprising the steps of: providing a member having a slide surface (disclosed), wherein at least the slide surface is made of a first plastic (as modified); coating at least part of the slide surface with a lipophilic composition coating to provide a first slide member having a slide layer with lowered friction (disclosed); providing a second slide member (disclosed), wherein at least a part of said second slide member configured to be in sliding contact with the slide layer is made of a plastic (disclosed), the plastics being different plastics (as modified); and arranging the first slide member and the second slide member such that an interface between the slide layer and the second slide member forms a plain bearing to allow for sliding movement of the second slide member and the first slide member relative to each other (disclosed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments filed August 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The position being taken that the rejections, as now mapped, adequately teaches all the claimed features and provides a clear rational as to why one would omit a lacquered layer in the slide system.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements, such as adding a lipophilic layer onto a plastic surface, with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to affect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396. The position being taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known elements according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various bearing element configurations for improving movability of a linear guide assembly.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
JOH
September 25, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
