DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-4 & 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 15, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on January 23, 2025 & April 22, 2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5, 7-8 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claims 5, 7-8 & 10-11, use of the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “preferably” are actually part of the claimed invention, and therefore the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable. Additionally, in Claims 5, 7 & 11, use of the phrase “and/or” in these claims is unclear and confusing since the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenarios individually, but does not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenarios combined within one embodiment. Appropriate correction / clarification is required.
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, 5-7 & 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2008/028809. WO`809 teaches of a drawer sidewall (12, 13) for a drawer (10), comprising: a hollow profile (defined as hollow body sections); and a connecting device (note fig. 2 for instance) for releasably connecting a front panel (described front panel – not shown) to the drawer sidewall, the connecting device being at least partially arranged within the hollow profile (note fig. 1), the connecting device including at least one coupling device (17) for releasably coupling the drawer sidewall to an extension rail (23) of a drawer pull-out guide, wherein the at least one coupling device includes at least one coupling element (19) configured to be releasably coupled to a coupling lever (20) for releasably coupling to the extension rail of the drawer pull-out guide. As to Claim 5, the at least one coupling element includes a bearing surface (viewed as the surface bearing / abutting against the structure of the extension rail (fig. 2). As to Claim 6, the drawer sidewall, in a coupled condition with the extension rail, is at least partially arranged between a fastening portion (portion of the guide rail) of a carcass rail (guide rail arranged on the furniture body – figs. 1-2) of the drawer pull-out guide and a vertical limb (sidewall) of the extension rail, the carcass rail being configured to be fixed to a furniture carcass (furniture body). As to Claim 7, the connecting device includes at least one adjustment device (18) configured to adjust a position of the front panel relative to the drawer sidewall in at least one direction (horizontal / vertical). As to Claim 9, the drawer sidewall is substantially cuboidal. As to Claim 10, an arrangement is defined between the drawer sidewall and the front panel where a front face of the sidewall contacts a rear face of the front panel with a connected condition therebetween as is conventional in the art. As to Claim 11, the arrangement includes at least one drawer bottom (11) to be connected to the drawer sidewall.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008/028809 in view of Albiez [US 5,181,772]. WO`809 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed drawer sidewall as outlined {mapped} above, including the incorporation of a drawer bottom (11); but does not show a groove in the sidewall as prescribed by applicant. However, Albiez is cited as an evidence reference for the known aspect of a groove (11) within a hollow profile sidewall (1) for receiving an edge of a drawer bottom (10) in an analogous art, the groove extending in a longitudinal direction of the drawer sidewall (note fig. 2), wherein the groove includes at least one upper holding limb (upper groove limit – fig. 2) and a lower holding limb (lower groove limit – fig. 2) spaced apart from the upper holding limb and extending parallel thereto, wherein the edge (side edge) of the drawer bottom can be arranged therebetween. Accordingly, the position is taken that 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 device of WO`809 so as to incorporate a drawer bottom receiving groove within the sidewall(s) in view of Albiez’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an alternative drawer bottom securing means by which the drawer bottom would be positively contained between lower and upper structures defining the groove thereby ensuring a robust seating of the drawer bottom between the two opposing drawer sidewalls.
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 1 & 5-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4 & 6-11 of co-pending Application No. 19/008,087 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed subject matter in the instant application is accounted for within the claimed scope of the reference application. For example, the limitations of Claim 1 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claims 1-2, the limitations of Claim 5 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 4, the limitations of Claim 6 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 7, the limitations of Claim 7 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 6, the limitations of Claim 8 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 8, the limitations of Claim 9 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 9, the limitations of Claim 10 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 10, and the limitations of Claim 11 are set forth within the claimed scope of Claim 11.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various drawer sidewall assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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. 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.
JOH
July 28, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights