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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
In claim 1 and claim 3, “in particular…” (e.g., claim 1, line 1) and “preferably…” (e.g., claim 3, lines 3, 11 and 12) render the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Note similar issues in claims 4, 7, and 9-12.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, it is not clear exactly what is defined as “a predetermined distance to the at least one furniture wall”, without a positioning reference between the movable furniture part and the furniture wall. For example, it is not clear whether the “predetermined distance” is referring to a distance measured from the movable furniture part (2a) to the wall (3a) when the door is positioned perpendicular to the wall (3a) or referring to a distance measured from a surface of the door to the surface of the wall when the door is positioned parallel to the wall.
In claim 1, line 11, “…when the predetermined distance becomes smaller” is not understood. If the distance were “predetermined” (a fixed value), then how could the distance become “smaller” (a variable)? Thus, the claimed cannot be fully understood.
In claim 3, “and/or…” (lines 4, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18) is vague and indefinite since the claim includes embodiments not actually disclosed and the scope of the claim is unascertainable. Note that each “and/or…” includes three embodiments (each separately and one together). All embodiments should be shown by the disclosure. Note similar issues in claim 12.
In claim 3, line 12, “s” should be “is”.
Note that other claims, depending from the rejected claims, are also considered vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-13, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by DE ‘156 (DE 202022100156 U1).
Regarding claim 1, DE shows a guide system (e.g., figs. 2 and 5) for guiding at least one movable furniture part (2, a sliding door wing) in a direction parallel to at least one furniture wall (211, 212), the guide system comprising: at least one guide device (221) for guiding the at least one movable furniture part, the guide device being configured to guide the at least one movable furniture part with a predetermined distance (any predetermined distance in any direction between the door wing and one of the walls 211 and 212) to the at least one furniture wall, wherein the guide system includes at least one gliding device (26) separate from the guide device (221), the at least one gliding device being configured to be arranged on the at least one movable furniture part (2) or on the at least one furniture wall (212) such that the at least one movable furniture part and the at least and the at least one furniture wall can be brought into gliding contact with each other via the gliding device when the predetermined distance becomes smaller.
As to claim 2, the at least one gliding device (26), in a condition in which the at least one movable furniture part (2) is guided with the predetermined distance relative to the furniture wall (212), is without contact to the at least one movable furniture part (2) or the at least one furniture wall (212).
As to claim 3, the at least one gliding device (26) includes at least one rolling body (guide wheel 26) that is rotatable about a substantially vertically extending rotational axis in a mounted condition (fig. 5).
As to claim 5, the guide system or the at least one guide device (221) includes at least one guide rail (221) for guiding the movable furniture part (2) in a direction extending parallel to the furniture wall (212), wherein at least running wheel (231) connected to the movable furniture part is displaceable along the at least one guide rail (221).
As to claim 7, the guide system includes at least one adjustment device (225) configured to adjust the at least one movable furniture part (2) with the predetermined distance relative to the furniture wall, and the adjustment device includes at least one rotatable adjustment wheel (the head of screw 225).
As to claim 8, the at least one movable furniture part (2) is movable by the guide system between a first position, in which the at least one movable furniture part is aligned substantially parallel to the furniture wall (fig. 4), and a second position, in which the at least one movable furniture part is aligned substantially perpendicular to the furniture wall (fig. 6, the door in fully closed position).
As to claim 9, the guide system includes at least one carrier (25) configured to pivotally support the movable furniture part (2), wherein the carrier is movable in a direction extending parallel to the at least one furniture wall (212).
As to claim 10, DE shows a gliding device (26) for glidingly supporting a movable furniture part (2), on at least one stationary furniture wall (212) the door wing); wherein the gliding device includes at least one movably-supported rolling body (wheel 26) configured to support the movable furniture part, wherein the gliding device includes at least one housing section (fig. 5, the housing section mounting the wheel 26 to the wall) configured to be at least partially countersunk recess of the movable furniture part or of the furniture wall (a projecting section of the wall between the two gliding devices 26 defining two partial recesses, see figure 6).
As to claim 11, DE shows an item of furniture having a carcass (1), at least one movable furniture part (2), and the guide system (figs. 2-5) for guiding the movable furniture part relative to the furniture carcass.
As to claim 12, the item of furniture includes at least one insertion compartment (21) for receiving the movable furniture part (2), wherein the at least one insertion compartment extends in a depth direction of the item of furniture (fig. 4).
As to claim 13, the at least one gliding device (26, 26) is arranged approximately at half of a height of the movable furniture part (fig. 5, the two gliding device located approximately at half of the height of the door).
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 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘156 in view of WO ‘489 (WO 2020/232489 A1).
Regarding claim 6, DE discloses the invention as claimed except for the guide system including a guide rail configured to guide the at least one movable furniture part (2) along a front face of a furniture carcass. WO ‘489 teaches a guide system (5) having at least one rail (front rail 7a) to guide the at least one movable furniture part (i.e., two door wings 3a, 3b) along a front face of a furniture carcass (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide system of DE with a front rail and a movable furniture part taught by WO, so that the movable furniture part can be guided smoothly to close a winder opening.
As to claim 14, the at least one movable furniture part taught by WO includes at least two door wings (3a and 3b) hingedly connected to each other and being movable by the guide system relative to the furniture carcass between a first position, in which the two door wings are aligned substantially parallel to each other (figs. 2a-2b), and at least a second position, in which the two door wings are aligned substantially coplanar to each other (fig. 1a).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘156 and WO ‘489 as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of Doan ‘862 (3,975,862).
The combination of DE and WO discussed above does not show a guide device, in form of a rotatable roller, arranged between the door wings. Doan teaches a guide device including a guide element (roller 40) arranged between two door wings to prevent interference between the door wings (col. 4, lines 17-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door wings of DE and WO, to prevent interference between the door wings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 may be given favorable consideration if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
5,149,180 (Haab et al.) shows a sliding door guide system having a roller mounted on a door support bar to prevent damage to the door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
December 27, 2025