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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 May 2026 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-5, 8-17, 19, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0049148 A1 (Gasser) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) and US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger).
With respect to claim 1: Gasser discloses a double-walled drawer frame (at least drawer side wall 1) comprising: an inner wall (inner wall 2, may optionally include container rail 4); an outer wall (outer wall 3), a first protrusion (Fig. 9: bent structure protruding at the top of inner wall 2, includes fixing limb 14) and a second protrusion (Fig. 9: bent structure protruding at the bottom of inner wall 2).
Gasser does not disclose “a spacer part arranged between the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein: the spacer part is plate-shaped and configured to be clamped between a first protrusion and a second protrusion” as claimed.
Domenig discloses a filler 13 that is arranged between the inner wall (side wall 15) and the outer wall (shaped component 1) of a double-walled drawer frame. The filler 13 is plate-shaped (at least Fig. 2) and configured to be clamped between a first protrusion (one of rib 11, rib 12, and leg 4) and a second protrusion (a second of rib 11, rib 12, and leg 4).
Domenig col. 2, lines 30-39 teach that the addition of the filler 13 stiffens the shaped component 1. Further, due to the locking of shaped component 1 with the side wall 15, the drawer itself will also have increased stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasser’s walls 2, 3 to have a filler therebetween (said filler between the devices 6, 9 of Fig. 6), in order to stiffen Gasser’s side wall 1 and provide Gasser’s drawer itself with increased stability – similarly to Domenig’s filler 13.
See the annotated image below. It is obvious to add the filler as indicated by the rectangular shape. The added filler meets “a spacer part arranged between the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein: the spacer part is plate-shaped and configured to be clamped between a first protrusion and a second protrusion” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gasser, as modified, does not meet “the outer wall, in a state in which the inner wall and the outer wall are connected, is curved in a direction of the inner wall such that the outer wall rests against the spacer part” as claimed.
Lautenschläger Figs. 2-3 show it is known in the art for the outer wall 122 of a double-walled drawer frame to be curved in a direction of the inner wall 120, at the shallow depression 123 thereof. Lautenschläger does not mention a function or purpose of the shallow depression 123, but the depression 123 is located against the reactively foaming polymer bead 40 that expands as it fills the interior of the wall.
OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that bends may be provided for stiffness and/or rigidity of a component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gasser’s outer wall 3 to include Lautenschläger’s shallow depression 123, in order to provide stiffness and/or rigidity thereto. It is obvious for the added shallow depression 123 to contact the filler added between the walls 2, 3.
This meets “the outer wall, in a state in which the inner wall and the outer wall are connected, is curved in a direction of the inner wall such that the outer wall rests against the spacer part” as claimed.
With respect to claim 2: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are configured to be connected via the first protrusion and the second protrusion (as modified, Gasser’s walls 2, 3 are connected by one or both of the upper and lower bent flange portions of wall 2). See at least Gasser [0035]-[0036].
With respect to claim 3: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein: the first protrusion and the second protrusion project transversely from the inner wall (the bent flange “protrusions” project transversely from wall 2); the first protrusion and the second protrusion are connected to the outer wall (when outer wall 3 is mounted to inner wall 2); the first protrusion or the second protrusion extends over an entire length or an entire width of the inner wall (Gasser Fig. 4: the upper and/or lower bent flange “protrusions” extend(s) the entire length of wall 2); the first protrusion or the second protrusion defines a front face of the double-walled drawer frame (according to the Applicant’s description @ [0094] of what a “front face” is, the bent flange “protrusions” of wall 2 define a front face as claimed); or the first protrusions and the second protrusion are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner wall, respectively (the bent flange “protrusions” are on the opposite top and bottom sides of wall 2).
With respect to claim 4: Domenig remains silent as to the material of filler 13, and therefore does not disclose “wherein the at least one spacer part: is made at least partially out of a foam” as claimed.
Lautenschläger shows it is known in the double-walled drawer frame art to use a variety of foams for the filler between the inner and outer walls of said double-walled drawer frame. E.G., hard foam contributes to strength and soft foam mainly has a noise-dampening action. Lautenschläger cols. 3-4 teach using a rectangular piece of ready-made soft foam. Lautenschläger col. 5, lines 1-3 state that chemically different foams can be used, such as polyurethanes, synthetic rubbers, etc. – depending on the properties desired in the foam-filled piece.
Lautenschläger shows that one of ordinary skill in the art has the skill and ability to select from various known foams, depending on the desired characteristics and/or material properties of the foam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filler 13 to be made of foam, in order to provide at least one of the desirable features from Lautenschläger (strength, noise dampening, etc.) to the filler 13.
With respect to claim 5: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein the spacer part, is configured to, in a clamped state: rest flat against the inner wall (the flat, vertical sides of filler 13 in Domenig Fig. 2 rest against the flat, vertical sides of wall 2 of Gasser Fig. 8).
Regarding the filler, as added to Gasser, meeting “cover at least a quarter of a surface area of the inner wall” as claimed, see Gasser Fig. 5. The added filler extends vertically between the modified fixing limb 14 and the lower bent flange portions of wall 2. The added filler extends along the wall 2 from device 6 to device 9. This represents at least a quarter of the surface area of wall 2.
With respect to claim 8: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion (the upper bent flange portion of wall 2) has a guide groove (the inner part of the “portion which is bent in a substantially S-shaped cross-section and which serves as a receiving means for a positively locking connection to an outer wall 3” @ [0035] – at the upper connection between walls 2 and 3) for guiding the outer wall.
With respect to claim 9: Gasser, as modified, meets a guiding-in surface (fixing limb 14 or the front, rounded part of the S-shaped portion of wall 2) for guiding the outer wall transversely to a longitudinal direction of the guide groove (this “guiding-in surface” guides wall 3 into the “guide groove” vertically or laterally, which is transverse to the front-back longitudinal direction of the “guide groove”), wherein the guiding-in surface adjoins the guide groove (fixing limb 14 adjoins the rear of the “guide groove”; the front, rounded part of the S-shaped portion adjoins the rear part of the S-shaped portion).
With respect to claim 10: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein the outer wall (outer wall 3) has a guide ridge (top portion of wall 3 engaged in the S-shaped part of wall 2) for guiding into the guide groove (as in Fig. 15).
With respect to claim 11: Gasser, as modified, meets a holding device (the lower, folded over end region of wall 3 and/or the connection with container rail 4) for holding the guide groove on the guide ridge (Gasser [0036]).
With respect to claim 12: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the second protrusion or the first protrusion has a stepped shape (both the upper and lower bent flange portions of wall 2 have a stepped shape).
With respect to claim 13: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a suspension ridge (the limb of rail 4 connected to the folded over lower end of wall 3 and/or the S-shaped part at the upper section of wall 2) for suspending the outer wall.
With respect to claim 14: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein the outer wall has a suspension groove (the folded over lower end of wall 3 and/or the groove formed by the top section of wall 3 and receiving the S-shaped section) for suspending the outer wall in the suspension ridge.
With respect to claim 15: Gasser, as modified, meets a drawer (drawer 16) comprising the double-walled drawer frame according to claim 1 (the modified side wall 1).
With respect to claim 16: Gasser, as modified, meets a method for mechanically or manually producing the double-walled drawer frame according to claim 1 (the modified side wall 1 – see Gasser [0027]-[0036] for making the side wall 1), the method comprising: clamping the spacer part between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see the annotated image in the rejection of claim 1), wherein the outer wall is arranged on the inner wall and connected to the inner wall (as in Gasser Fig. 8 and [0035]-[0036]).
With respect to claim 17: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein the outer wall is arranged on the first protrusion and the second protrusion (the first and second protrusions are on inner wall 2; the outer wall 3 is arranged on/against the first and second protrusions when the outer wall 3 is attached to the inner wall 2), and the inner wall and the outer wall are connected (as in Gasser Fig. 8 and [0035]-[0036]).
With respect to claim 19: See Gasser Figs. 14-15 and [0035]-[0036]. In the process of joining the outer wall 3 to the inner wall 2/container rail 4, the outer wall 3 moves a combination of laterally towards inner wall 2 (to bring walls 2 and 3 in proximity to each other) and vertically upwards towards inner wall 2 (to engage the top of wall 3 in the S-shaped portion of wall 2, and to engage the folded over bottom end of wall 3 on the limb of container rail 4).
Gasser, as modified, meets shifting the inner wall and the outer wall relative to each other in at least one of a first direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the inner wall or the outer wall or a second direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the inner wall or the outer wall (one or both of the lateral and vertical portions of the movement of outer wall 3 are transverse to the longitudinal direction of inner wall 2), wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are connected during the shifting (into the position of Gasser Fig. 15).
With respect to claim 22: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a stepped shape (both the upper and lower bent flange portions of inner wall 2 have a stepped shape), the method further comprising: arranging the spacer part against a first step of the stepped shape, starting from the inner wall (filler 13 is placed on a first step of the stepped shape of the lower bent flange portion of inner wall 2); or arranging the outer wall on a second step of the stepped shape, starting from the outer wall (placing outer wall 3 against the lower bent flange portion of inner wall 2 and container rail 4, which comprise a second step of the stepped shape of the lower bent flange portion of inner wall 2; and/or placing outer wall 3 against the S-shaped section and/or fixing limb 14 of the upper bent flange portion of inner wall 2).
With respect to claim 24: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein, in the state in which the inner wall and the outer wall are connected, the spacer part (the added filler) is clamped between the inner wall (wall 2) and a curve of the outer wall (the shallow depression 123 added to wall 3).
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0049148 A1 (Gasser) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) and US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US 6,493,917 B1 (Sunka) and DE 203 18 380 U1 (Duravit AG).
With respect to claims 4 and 20: Domenig does not disclose the filler 13 “has a predetermined breaking point” as recited in claim 4. Gasser, as modified, does not meet “before clamping the spacer part between the first protrusion and the second protrusion: breaking the spacer part along a predetermined breaking point; and using a fraction of the spacer part for clamping between the first protrusion and the second protrusion” as recited in claim 20.
Sunka Figs. 5-6 and col. 3, lines 30-51 disclose a single plastic sheet board 200 with perforations 202 that allow any combination of individual sections 201 to be broken off. This allows an installer to customize the length and height of the wall sections that are broken off of the board 200.
Duravit AG discloses a sheet 1 with pre-determined breaking lines 3 formed by perforations 6, thereby allowing a user to form wall sections of desired length. This enables use in various sizes of drawers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filler 13 to be made of a large section of material having pre-determined breaking points and/or perforations, in order to user to create fillers 13 of different sizes - and thereby be used in drawers of different sizes.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0049148 A1 (Gasser) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) and US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of DE 20 2012 003 658 U1 (Julius Blum).
With respect to claim 21: Gasser, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a guide groove (formed by the S-shaped portion at the upper bent flange section of inner wall 2) and the outer wall has a guide ridge (corresponding structure at the top of outer wall 3, for insertion into the S-shaped part of inner wall 2), the method further comprising: arranging the guide ridge in the guide groove (Gasser [0035]-[0036]).
Gasser does not disclose “shifting the guide ridge in the guide groove in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the inner wall or the outer wall” as claimed.
Julius Blum Figs. 2-6, Figs. 9-11, and page 3 of the translation show it is known in the art for an outer wall 1b to be shifted in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the inner wall 1a during assembly thereof. Julius Blum’s inner wall 1a forms a guide groove similar to Gasser’s inner wall 2, and Julius Blum’s outer wall 1b forms a guide ridge similar to Gasser’s outer wall 3 (Julius Blum Fig. 9b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly process of Gasser to have outer wall 3 shift in the longitudinal direction of inner wall 2, in the process of reaching the mounted state of Gasser Fig. 8, because Julius Blum shows it is known for similar structures to be connected in this manner.
With respect to claim 23: By making the same combinations/modifications as in the rejection of claim 21 above, the modification of Gasser meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a suspension ridge (the flange of container rail 4 that mounts to the folded over bottom edge of outer wall 3 or the S-shaped portion at the upper part of inner wall 2), and the inner wall or the outer wall has a suspension groove (the folded over bottom edge of wall 3 or the structure at the top of wall 3 engaged in the S-shaped portion of inner wall 2, the method further comprising: arranging the suspension ridge in the suspension groove (Gasser [0035]-[0036]; Julius Blum Figs. 2-4); and shifting the suspension ridge in the suspension groove in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the inner wall or the outer wall (Julius Blum Figs. 4-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the latest amendments.
The Applicant’s remarks related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 made in the previous Office action are rendered moot, as those grounds of rejection are no longer relied upon.
The new grounds of rejection in this Office action are necessitated by the latest claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights