Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,567 in view of Miller (4,141,525). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent and application both teach a cabinet system comprising: a cabinet comprising a back cabinet panel, two side cabinet panels, and a plurality of face frame components; a drawer comprising a back drawer panel, two side drawer panels, and a front drawer panel; and two drawer glide mechanisms, each drawer glide mechanism comprising: a first elongate guide member comprising a first end attached to one of the plurality of face frame components, a second end opposite the first end, and a length extending between the first and second ends; a second elongate guide member comprising a first end, a second end opposite the first end of the second elongate guide member, and a length extending between the first and second ends of the second elongate guide member, the second elongate guide member connected to one of the two side drawer panels at one or more locations along the length of the second elongate guide member between the first and second ends of the second elongate guide member; and a ball bearing component comprising a plurality of ball bearings positioned between at least a portion of the first elongate guide member and at least a portion of the second elongate guide member, the ball bearing component configured to allow the second elongate guide member to move relative to the first elongate guide member; an attachment structure for securing the first elongate guide member to the back cabinet panel, the attachment structure arranged at the second end of the first elongate guide member and positioned against the back cabinet panel, the attachment structure oriented substantially perpendicular with respect to the length of the first elongate guide member and comprising a first slot and a second slot spaced from the first slot; a first fastener extending through the first slot of the attachment structure and through at least a portion of the back cabinet panel; and a second fastener extending through the second slot of the attachment structure and through at least a portion of the back cabinet panel; wherein the attachment structure and the first and second fasteners are secured to the back cabinet panel such that the attachment structure and the second end of the first elongate guide member are slideable along the first and second fasteners via the first and second slots. Wherein the first slot and the second slot are substantially parallel with one another. Wherein each of the first and second fasteners comprises plastic. Wherein each of the drawer glide mechanism further comprises a sidewall attachment mechanism, and wherein the first elongate guide member is attached to said one of the plurality of face frame components with the sidewall attachment mechanism. Wherein the sidewall attachment mechanism comprises a plastic dowel. Wherein the sidewall attachment mechanism is rigidly affixed to a side of the first elongate guide member. Wherein the attachment structure is integral with said first elongate guide member. Wherein: the first fastener comprises a first portion that extends through the at least the portion of the back cabinet panel and a second portion that is arranged at the first slot, at least one of the first and second portions of the first fastener comprising plastic; and the second fastener comprises a first portion that extends through the at least the portion of the back cabinet panel and a second portion that is arranged at the second slot, at least one of the first and second portions of the second fastener comprising plastic. Although the parallel slots are not specifically claimed as being one above the other, having an attachment structure wherein the second slot is spaced from and above the first slot on its member would be well known in the art as taught by Miller (Fig. 1;36a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the member attachment structure of the patent by orienting the parallel slots one above the other, such as is taught by Miller, depending on the attachment/adjustment of the member desired and/or required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinsel et al (CA2,526,779) in view of Miller (4,141,525) and Michaels (2004/0080246). Kinsel teaches a cabinet system (Fig. 1) comprising: a cabinet (112) comprising a back cabinet panel (136), two side cabinet panels (116,118), and a plurality of face frame components (122); a drawer (114) comprising a back drawer panel (146), two side drawer panels (142,144), and a front drawer panel (148); and two drawer glide mechanisms, each drawer glide mechanism comprising: a first elongate guide member (124) comprising a first end attached to one of the plurality of face frame components, a second end opposite the first end, and a length extending between the first and second ends; a second elongate guide member (150) comprising a first end, a second end opposite the first end of the second elongate guide member, and a length extending between the first and second ends of the second elongate guide member, the second elongate guide member connected to one of the two side drawer panels at one or more locations along the length of the second elongate guide member between the first and second ends of the second elongate guide member; and a bearing component (128) comprising a plurality of bearings positioned between at least a portion of the first elongate guide member and at least a portion of the second elongate guide member, the bearing component configured to allow the second elongate guide member to move relative to the first elongate guide member; an attachment structure (134; Fig. 2) for securing the first elongate guide member to the back cabinet panel, the attachment structure arranged at the second end of the first elongate guide member and positioned against the back cabinet panel (via 140), the attachment structure oriented substantially perpendicular with respect to the length of the first elongate guide member and comprising a first slot (152). First, for claims 2, 10 and 18, Kinsel fails to teach that the first fastener extends through the back of the cabinet and that there is a second slot and fastener in the attachment structure. Miller teaches a cabinet guide member (12; Fig. 7) having an attachment structure (10) with plural slots vertically spaced (36a) to attach a fastener (screw or tack; column 2, lines 25-32) to the structure and through a cabinet back. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment structure of the cabinet guide member of Kinsel by using an alternate bracket, i.e. using the structure of Miller in place of the structure presently used, to simplify the member attachment to the cabinet. Wherein the attachment structure and the first and second fasteners are secured to the back cabinet panel such that the attachment structure and the second end of the first elongate guide member are slideable along the first and second fasteners via the first and second slots. Second for claims 2, 10 and 18, Kinsel fails to specifically teach ball bearings within the bearing component. Michaels teaches a ball bearing component (14,16) between cabinet and drawer guide members (10,12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kinsel by using balls, such as is taught by Michaels, in place of the rollers presently used, depending on personal preferences. Since these bearings are functionally equivalent, either would work equally well between the guide members of Kinsel.
For claims 3, 11 and 19, Kinsel in view of Miller and Michaels further teaches that the first slot and the second slot are substantially parallel with one another.
For claims 8, 16 and 21, Kinsel in view of Miller, and Michaels further teaches that the attachment structure is integral with said first elongate guide member.
Claims 4-7, 9, 12-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinsel et al (CA2,526,779) in view of Miller (4,141,525) and Michaels (2004/0080246) as applied to claims 2, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Maberry et al (5,457,867). As stated above, Kinsel in view of Miller and Michaels teaches the limitations of claims 2, 10 and 18, including first and second fasteners in the back wall slide connecting the attachment structure to the back wall. For claims 4, 9, 12, 17 and 20, Kinsel in view of Miller and Michaels fails to teach that the fasteners include plastic portions. Maberry teaches fasteners having a screw (20A,B) with a plastic dowel portion (16,18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment structure of Kinsel in view of Miller and Michaels by using dowel type fasteners, such as is taught by Maberry, in place of just screws extending through the slots, since these attachments are functional equivalents and either would work equally well in attaching the structure to the cabinet back wall. Furthermore, the modified attachment would allow greater adjustment of the attachment structure within the cabinet via allowed movement between the fasteners and the abutment surface/slots.
Furthermore for claims 5 and 13, Maberry teaches that its guide member additionally comprises a sidewall attachment mechanism (16,18 with 20A,B into 12A,B; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabinet system of Kinsel in view of Miller and Michaels by using the attachment mechanism of Maberry between the first elongate guide member and one of the plurality of face frame components, for fastener consistency and to provide a stronger attachment structure for the guide member within the cabinet.
For claims 6 and 14, Kinsel in view of Miller, Michaels and Maberry further teaches that the sidewall attachment mechanism comprises a plastic dowel (16,18; Fig. 4 of Maberry).
For claims 7 and 15, Kinsel in view of Miller, Michaels and Maberry further teaches that the sidewall attachment mechanism is rigidly affixed to a side of the first elongate guide member.
For claims 9 and 17, Kinsel in view of Miller, Michaels and Maberry further teaches that the first fastener comprises a first portion (16,18 of Maberry) that extends through the at least the portion of the back cabinet panel (of Kinsel) and a second portion (20A,B) that is arranged at the first slot (36a of Miller), at least one of the first and second portions of the first fastener comprising plastic (Fig. 4 of Maberry); and the second fastener comprises a first portion that extends through the at least the portion of the back cabinet panel (16,18) and a second portion (20A,B) that is arranged at the second slot (36a), at least one of the first and second portions of the second fastener comprising plastic (Fig. 4 of Maberry).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Addressing the arguments concerning the double patenting rejection: as stated above, it would have been obvious to modify the member attachment structure of the patent by orienting the parallel slots one above the other, such as is taught by Miller, depending on the member attachment/adjustment desired and/or required.
Addressing the argument concerning the art rejection over Kinsel et al (CA2,526,779) in view of Miller (4,141,525) and Michaels (2004/0080246): the examiner contends that Miller does teach first and second slots (36a) spaced one above the other. Furthermore, Miller is being employed for its teaching of an attachment structure for a drawer guide structure having plural slots attachable to a cabinet wall. Inherently the slots allow adjustment of the structure to which it is a part of for correct placement. In column 2, lines 25-54, it is stated that the slot can be selectively used. Therefore, when slots 36a have fasteners inserted therein, the desired adjustments can be made. Furthermore, Kinsel does not specifically teach away from direct attachment of the structure to the cabinet, it simply teaches an alternate attachment mechanism/bracket. The screw(s) attaching the structure to the cabinet would still need to be positioned into place via a screwdriver in both scenarios.
PNG
media_image1.png
219
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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.
Wilkens
October 12, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights