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 .
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, 12-16, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig).
With respect to claim 1: Lautenschläger discloses a double-walled drawer frame comprising: an inner wall (inner wall 120); an outer wall (outer wall 122); and a spacer part arranged between the inner wall and the outer wall (col. 4, lines 57-67: “Other self-foaming substances can also, of course, be placed in such hollow pieces which are composed of at least one folded or rolled sheet-metal piece. For example, a full-blown soft foam strip could, again, be inserted into the partially open metal piece (see FIG. 2) and then the piece could be closed. The soft foam is thereby compressed and thus completely fills the hollow space 300. Again, a blown but not yet cured foam corresponding at least to the volume of the hollow space could be placed in the open piece; when the piece is closed the still-uncured foam will adapt to the shape of the hollow space and fill it up.”), wherein: the spacer part is configured to be clamped between a first protrusion (transverse portion 124) and a second protrusion (limb portions 126 and 127); the outer wall, in a state in which the inner wall and the outer wall are connected (Fig. 3, when catch projection 125 engages limb 127), is curved in a direction of the inner wall such that the outer wall rests against the spacer part (Fig. 3: shallow depression 123 of outer wall 122 is curved in a direction of inner wall 120 and rests against the foam inside hollow space 300); and in the state in which the inner wall and the outer wall are connected, the spacer part is clamped between the inner wall and a curve (shallow depression 123) of the outer wall (in that the foam member is disclosed as being compressed inside hollow space 300 and adapted to completely fill the shape of the hollow space 300).
Lautenschläger does not disclose the “full-blown soft strip” inside hollow space 300 meets “plate-shaped” as claimed.
Lautenschläger col. 4 describes the foam as a full-blown soft foam strip that is placed inside the partially open piece (Fig. 2), and then compressed to completely fill the hollow space 300 when the piece is closed (Fig. 3). A blown but not cured foam may be placed in space 300 (Fig. 2), and the uncured foam will adapt to the shape of space 300 and fill it up (Fig. 3).
Lautenschläger col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 10 state (the “plastic” is the foam):
The plastic can be placed in the hollow space in various ways, depending on whether the stock is extruded or is composed of sheet metal parts, and on what working properties the foam has. On the one hand it is possible to inject or force a pre-blown foam into an extruded hollow piece or to apply it to the interior of a bent metal piece or to the inside of a still open full bent sheet metal piece. In the case of a reactively self-foaming plastic, the latter can under certain circumstances be inserted in strand form or be poured into the hollow space. For a drawer side that is bent from a single piece of sheet metal it may be desirable to apply a self-foaming plastic to the inside of the open piece and close it before the foaming action ends.
Lautenschläger Fig. 1 is a different embodiment than the relied-upon embodiment of Figs. 2-3, and includes foam 4 inside a hollow space 3. Col. 3, line 62 to col. 4, line 9 state:
The foam 4 filling the hollow space 3 of the hollow stock 2 can be a hard foam or a resilient soft foam, depending on the properties required in the foam-filled piece. It can be installed in the hollow 3 in various ways. If a ready-made soft foam material is used, for example, a strip of substantially rectangular cross section having a cross-sectional area slightly greater than the cross-sectional area of the hollow 3 can be forced into the hollow space 3 from one end. In the case of an already prepared but not yet cured foam it is possible to inject it into the hollow space 3 to fill out the latter and then allow the foam to cure. If a reactively self-foaming prepolymer is used, however, an appropriate amount can be introduced into the hollow space in the form, for example, of a bead of prepolymer, and then the plastic will foam up of itself and fill the entire hollow space 3.
Such “a strip of substantially rectangular cross section” is “plate-shaped” as claimed.
Domenig Fig. 2 shows a filler 13 that is “a spacer part” that is “plate-shaped” as claimed, and embodies “a strip of substantially rectangular cross section” as disclosed by Lautenschläger. Domenig’s filler stiffens the wall and provides the drawer with increased stability (col. 2, lines 30-39), thereby making Domenig’s filler analogous and/or functionally equivalent to Lautenschläger’s foam. Lautenschläger’s foam dampens sound and/or strengthens the drawer wall (col. 1, line 61 to col. 3, line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Lautenschläger Figs. 2-3 to have inside the space 300 a plate-shaped strip of foam with rectangular cross-section having a cross-sectional area slightly larger than the cross-sectional area of the hollow space 300, instead of the shown prepolymer bead 40 that expands into foam 400, as an obvious alternative means for filling the hollow space 300 with foam as desired by Lautenschläger.
With respect to claim 2: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are configured to be connected via the first protrusion and the second protrusion (Fig. 3: inner wall 120 and outer wall 122 connected by transverse portion 124 and limbs 126, 127).
With respect to claim 3: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein: the first protrusion and the second protrusion project transversely from the inner wall (Fig. 3); the first protrusion and the second protrusion are connected to the outer wall (Fig. 3); the first protrusion or the second protrusion extends over an entire length or an entire width of the inner wall; 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, transverse portion 124 defines “a front face” as claimed); or the first protrusions and the second protrusion are arranged on two opposite sides of the inner wall, respectively (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 4: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein the at least one spacer part: is made at least partially out of a foam (as in Lautenschläger’s disclosure).
With respect to claim 5: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein the spacer part, is configured to, in a clamped state: rest flat against the inner wall (Fig. 3); or cover at least a quarter of a surface area of the inner wall (Fig. 3 and/or the foam is disclosed as completely filling the hollow cavity 300).
With respect to claim 12: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the second protrusion or the first protrusion has a stepped shape (Figs. 2-3: limbs 126, 127 and/or the limbs connected thereto form a stepped shape).
With respect to claim 13: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a suspension ridge (free end 127a of limb 127) for suspending the outer wall (via catch projection 125).
With respect to claim 14: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein the outer wall has a suspension groove (catch projection 125) for suspending the outer wall in the suspension ridge (Figs. 2-3).
With respect to claim 15: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets a drawer (“Drawers for use in the manufacture of furniture”; the drawer formed using the modified drawer side) comprising the double-walled drawer frame according to claim 1 (the modified drawer side).
With respect to claim 16: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets a method for mechanically or manually producing the double-walled drawer frame according to claim 1 (the modified drawer side – see Lautenschläger for bending sheet metal to form the drawer side), the method comprising: clamping the spacer part between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (Fig. 2: putting the rectangular foam piece between transverse portion 124 and limb 126), wherein the outer wall is arranged on the inner wall and connected to the inner wall (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 19: Lautenschläger, 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 (Fig. 2: the direction of the arrow indicating the movement of outer wall 122 is transverse to the longitudinal direction of the walls 120, 122), wherein the inner wall and the outer wall are connected during the shifting (into the position of Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 22: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a stepped shape (Figs. 2-3: lower protrusion which includes limbs 126, 127 is stepped shaped), the method further comprising: arranging the spacer part against a first step of the stepped shape, starting from the inner wall (placing the foam strip on limb 126); or arranging the outer wall on a second step of the stepped shape, starting from the outer wall (engaging catch projection 125 with limb 127).
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) 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: Lautenschläger does not disclose the foam strip “has a predetermined breaking point” as recited in claim 4. Lautenschläger, 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 foam strip to be made of a large section of material having pre-determined breaking points and/or perforations, in order to user to create foam strips of different sizes - and thereby be used in drawers of different sizes.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US 2014/0049148 A1 (Gasser).
With respect to claim 8: Lautenschläger, as modified in the rejection of claim 1, does not meet “wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a guide groove” as claimed.
In the embodiment of Figs. 2-3, Lautenschläger’s drawer wall is formed as a single piece 100 that includes both inner wall 120 and outer wall 122. The outer wall 122 is bent from the position of Fig. 2 to the position of Fig. 3, where the catch projection 125 engages the limb 127.
Lautenschläger col. 2, lines 58-64 describe an embodiment which is not shown in the figures:
If the drawer side is assembled from two hollow pieces bent from sheet metal, first these pieces are made, then foam is placed within one of the parts forming the hollow space, the parts are placed in contact with one another in certain areas, and there they are bonded together such that the foam will just fill the hollow space which they form.
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). 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lautenschläger’s sheet metal piece 100 to be formed in two pieces, like Gasser’s walls 2 and 3, because Lautenschläger col. 2, lines 58-64 discloses the drawer side formed in two sheet metal pieces and connected together. It is obvious to use known, prior art construction as a template for the two-piece construction.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion 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” @ Gasser [0035] – at the upper connection between walls 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 9: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets a guiding-in surface (fixing limb 14 or the front, rounded part of the S-shaped portion of Gasser’s wall 2) for guiding the outer wall transversely to a longitudinal direction of the guide groove (this “guiding-in surface” guides Gasser’s 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 (Gasser’s 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: Lautenschläger, 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: Lautenschläger, 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 17: By making the same modifications as in the rejections of claims 8-11, Lautenschläger in view of Domenig and Gasser 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]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of DE 20 2012 003 658 U1 (Julius Blum).
With respect to claim 21: Lautenschläger, as modified, does not meet “wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a guide groove and the outer wall has a guide ridge, the method further comprising: arranging the guide ridge in the guide groove; and 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.
In the embodiment of Figs. 2-3, Lautenschläger’s drawer wall is formed as a single piece 100 that includes both inner wall 120 and outer wall 122. The outer wall 122 is bent from the position of Fig. 2 to the position of Fig. 3, where the catch projection 125 engages the limb 127.
Lautenschläger col. 2, lines 58-64 describe an embodiment which is not shown in the figures:
If the drawer side is assembled from two hollow pieces bent from sheet metal, first these pieces are made, then foam is placed within one of the parts forming the hollow space, the parts are placed in contact with one another in certain areas, and there they are bonded together such that the foam will just fill the hollow space which they form.
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, and Julius Blum’s outer wall 1b forms a guide ridge (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 Lautenschläger’s sheet metal piece 1 to be two pieces which are connected together like Julius Blum’s walls 1a and 1b, because Lautenschläger col. 2, lines 58-64 discloses the drawer side formed in two sheet metal pieces and connected together. It is obvious to use known, prior art construction as a template for the two-piece construction.
Such a modification meets, as claimed, wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a guide groove (like Julius Blum’s inner wall 1a) and the outer wall has a guide ridge (like Julius Blum’s outer wall 1b), the method further comprising: arranging the guide ridge in the guide groove (Julius Blum Figs. 2-6, Figs. 9-11, and page 3 of the translation); and shifting the guide ridge in the guide groove in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the inner wall or the outer wall (Julius Blum Figs. 2-6, Figs. 9-11, and page 3 of the translation).
With respect to claim 23: Lautenschläger, as modified, meets wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion has a suspension ridge (free end 127a), and the inner wall or the outer wall has a suspension groove (catch projection 125), the method further comprising: arranging the suspension ridge in the suspension groove (Fig. 3).
Lautenschläger, as modified, does not meet “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” 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.
Lautenschläger col. 2, lines 58-64 describe an embodiment which is not shown in the figures:
If the drawer side is assembled from two hollow pieces bent from sheet metal, first these pieces are made, then foam is placed within one of the parts forming the hollow space, the parts are placed in contact with one another in certain areas, and there they are bonded together such that the foam will just fill the hollow space which they form.
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 Lautenschläger to have outer wall 122 shift in the longitudinal direction of inner wall 120, in the process of reaching the mounted state of Fig. 3, because Julius Blum shows it is known for two-piece structures to be connected in this manner.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,292,190 A (Lautenschläger) in view of US 5,370,454 A (Domenig) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2017/154770 A1 (Kikushima).
With respect to claim 25: Lautenschläger, as modified, does not meet “wherein the spacer part is made entirely of a polyethylene foam having elastic properties such that the spacer part is configured to return to an original shape without permanent deformation upon removal after being clamped between the first protrusion and the second protrusion” as claimed.
Lautenschläger col. 5, lines 1-4 teaches, “Chemically different foams can be used, such as polyurethanes, synthetic rubbers, etc., can be used, depending on the properties desired in the foam-filled piece”. Lautenschläger teaches that soft, elastic foam provides mainly a noise-damping action (col. 2, lines 7-11) and/or is compressed to completely fill the hollow space (col. 4, lines 57-67).
Kikushima shows that polyurethane foam and polyethylene foam are known alternative foams in the furniture manufacturing industry (“Examples of the foam include synthetic resin foams such as polyurethane foam, polyisocyanate foam, polystyrene foam, phenol foam, and polyethylene 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 foam strip to be made of elastic polyethylene foam, as an obvious and known alternative to the polyurethane disclosed by Lautenschläger. Lautenschläger suggests using different foams, depending on their desired properties.
Regarding the claim limitation “such that the spacer part is configured to return to an original shape without permanent deformation upon removal after being clamped between the first protrusion and the second protrusion”, the Applicant’s spacer part meets this capability and/or functionality by virtue of being made of polyethylene foam. The modified foam strip is made out of polyethylene foam. According to the Applicant’s disclosure, the modified foam strip being made of polyethylene foam means the modified foam strip meets “such that the spacer part is configured to return to an original shape without permanent deformation upon removal after being clamped between the first protrusion and the second protrusion” as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s remarks related to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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