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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) -706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
At least claims 20 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18210900 in view of US Pub No. 20190330898 (“Rupp et al.”).
The claims in the copending application and the current application are not patently distinct . Both claim a moveable furniture part on a stationary furniture part, having a guide system, a support, a compensation device, a cable tensioning device ; and a display device with an indicator. The difference is copending application 18210900 does not recite the cable tensioning device having a limiting device, but US Pub No. 20190330898 discloses the benefit of utilizing a cable tensioning device with a limiting device.
Thus, the subject matter of claims 20 and 21 of the current Application (18927450) are encompassed within claim 1 of copending Application No. 18210900. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a restoring moment” does not have proper antecedent basis in the specification.
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 1-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-28 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Claim 3 recites a predetermined actuating moment, Claim 7 recites the predetermined actuating moment is an energy storage mechanism. It is unclear how the energy storage mechanism is a moment. Appropriate explanation or a correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 17, 24 and 28, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the bearing,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-13, 16-19 and 22-28, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2021119692 (“Irgang et al.) in view of US Pub No. 20190330898 (“Rupp et al.”). As to Irgang et al., Examiner is relying on US 20220316252 for the English translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Irgang et al. discloses an assembly for guiding a movable furniture part (2), preferably a furniture door, sliding door or folding sliding door, on a stationary furniture part (3), preferably a furniture carcass, the assembly comprising:
at least one guide system (4, 5) to be fastened to the stationary furniture part (3), a support (8), on which the movable furniture part (2) is or can be pivotably mounted, a compensation device for compensating for a tilting moment of the support (8) or of the movable furniture part (2) arranged thereon about a tilt axis using a restoring moment, wherein the compensation device comprises at least one cable pull device (11) with at least one cable (11a), and a cable tensioning device ([0076])for tensioning the at least one cable (11a).
Irgang et al. discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the cable tensioning device has a limiting device (81, 82).
Rupp et al. discloses a similar invention having a cable tensioning device (77, [0071]-[0074], best seen in Figs. 10a-10d) that has , which can prevent a further tensioning of the at least one cable when a predetermined cable tension is reached.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cable of the movable furniture part with a cable tensioning device having a limiting device (81, 82), similar to the one taught by Rupp et al., to provide a simple to vary the tension on the cable [0071]-[0074].
Regarding Claim 2-6, the combination discloses (Rupp et al.”) Claim 2-wherein the cable tensioning device (77) has an actuating element (79) for actuating the cable tensioning device (77); Claim 3- wherein an operative connection between the cable tensioning device (77) and the actuating element (79) can be interrupted by the limiting device (81, 82) when a predetermined actuating moment, which preferably correlates with the predetermined cable tension, is reached; Claim 4-wherein the actuating element (79) is part of the limiting device (81, 82); Claim 5-, wherein the limiting device (81, 82) comprises a bearing element (82), in or on which the actuating element (79) can be or is mounted; Claim 6-wherein the limiting device (81, 82) comprises a connecting element (oval portion of 81), through which the bearing element (82) and the actuating element (79) are or can be at least temporarily connected in a movement-coupled manner.
Regarding claims 7-9, the combination discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the connecting element is elastically deformable or the limiting device has an energy storage mechanism, Irgang et al. demonstrated the benefit of an energy storage device [0057].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having skill in the art to provide the limiting device with an energy storage mechanism to slow or dampen the limiting device, as is well known in the art. As modified, the limiting device has an energy storage mechanism, through which a predetermined force is or can be applied to the connecting element, and/or wherein the connecting element is formed as an energy storage mechanism at least in areas, preferably wherein the predetermined actuating moment is defined by the energy storage mechanism and/or the connecting element formed as an energy storage mechanism at least in areas; wherein the connecting element is formed elastically deformable at least in areas; wherein the connecting element is elastically deformable against the action of the energy storage mechanism and/or of the connecting element formed as an energy storage mechanism at least in areas when the predetermined cable tension is reached, as a result of which a movement-coupled connection between the bearing element (82) and the actuating element can be overridden.
Regarding Claim 10-13, 16-19 and 22 the combination discloses (Rupp et al.”) Claim 10-, wherein the actuating element (79) has a screw drive (80); Claim 11- wherein the actuating element (79) is formed substantially rotationally symmetrical; Claim 12- wherein the bearing element (82) is formed substantially rotationally symmetrical; Claim 13-wherein the connecting element and/or the energy storage mechanism is/are formed partially circular (known in the art to provide a circular spring, as demonstrated by Irgang et al.); Claim 16- wherein the cable tensioning device (77) has a tensioning unit comprising a contact element (52) for contacting the at least one cable and a tensioning element (77, 79) for tensioning the at least one cable via the contact element; Claim 17-wherein the contact element is mounted on the tensioning element(77, 79) via a movement thread (via 82), and/or wherein at least one resilient element, which is preferably formed as an O-ring, is arranged between the contact element and the tensioning element; Claim 18- wherein the tensioning element (77, 79) or can be connected to the bearing element in a movement-coupled manner; Claim 19-, wherein the bearing element (82) has an actuating portion (83) for pretensioning the cable tensioning device (77); Claim 22- wherein the cable tensioning device (77) comprises at least one securing device (52) for securing the at least one cable;
Regarding Claims 23-24, the combination discloses (Irgang et al.) Claim 23-wherein, in addition to the at least one cable pull device (11), at least one pivot lever mechanism (12) is provided, wherein the at least one pivot lever mechanism comprises at least two pivot levers (12a, 12b), which are connected to each other in an articulated manner and which are pivotable relative to each other when the support (8) is moved on the stationary furniture part (3); Claim 24- a piece of furniture comprising: a stationary furniture part (3), a movable furniture part (2), and the assembly according to claim 1, preferably wherein the piece of furniture has at least one shaft-like cavity in which the at least one movable furniture part (2) can be arranged.
Regarding Claim 25-28, the combination discloses (Irgang et al.) Claim 25-wherein the at least one guide system (4, 5) is fastened to the stationary furniture part (3) in a first method step, the support (8) is connected to the at least one guide system (4, 5) in a movement-coupled manner in a second method step, and the cable (11a) of the cable pull device (11) is tensioned by means of the cable tensioning device (as modified by Rupp et al) in a third method step, wherein a further tensioning of the cable is prevented by the limiting device (81, 82) when a predetermined cable tension is reached; Claim 26- further comprising before the third method step: inserting the cable into the cable tensioning device (77, as modified by Rupp et al), and securing the cable by means of the securing device (52); Claim 27- wherein at least one of the at least two pivot levers (12a, 12b) is connected to the at least one guide system (4, 5) and/or to the stationary furniture part (3) in an intermediate step; Claim 28- wherein a movable furniture part (2), preferably a furniture door, sliding door or folding sliding door, is installed on the support (8) in a further method step.
Irgang et al. and Rupp et al. teach a method for installing the assembly but they don’t expressly teach the method steps as set forth above, since the combination discloses the invention of claims 25-28, such method steps would occur during the ordinary course of installing the assembly on the movable furniture part, see MPEP 2112.02
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Irgang et al. and Rupp et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No.: 7784521 (“Mullet”).
Regarding Claims 20-21, the combination discloses the claimed invention but does not teach the cable tensioning with a display and indicator.
Regarding 20 and 21, Mullet discloses a moveable door with Claim 20- a cable tensioning device that has a display device (155, 157) for displaying a cable tension state (col. 8: lines 13-33); Claim 21-wherein the display device comprises a display element with an indicator (157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tension device taught by Rupp et al. with a display device to allow the user an easier means to read and easily adjust the tension device to the desired tension.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 would be allowable 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 12:30-6:30.
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 on 5712703742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights