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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-15, 17, & 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuffel (DE102017103595) in view of Sostar (20220228615).
Regarding claim 1, Stuffel teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a drawer lateral wall (5-6) for a drawer, comprising: a rear wall (8; & 11 on 8) mounting configured to hold a rear wall (3) transversely to the drawer lateral wall; but fail(s) to teach a clamping device. However, Sostar teaches a rear wall mounting (4, 21-22) having a clamping device (4) configured to hold a rear wall (3) in a clamping manner, wherein the clamping device has a clamping lever (4) movable between a clamping position (Fig. 10b) and a release position (Fig. 9b), the clamping lever being mounted on the rear wall mounting so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis (A - see Fig. 4a & par. 120), and the pivot axis extends essentially normal to a lateral wall (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a rear wall mounting, as taught by Sostar, for each of the rear wall mountings of Stuffel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to removably connect the rear wall to the drawer lateral wall (as suggested by par. 66 of Sostar), thereby facilitating repair & replacement of parts of the drawer.
Regarding claim 2, Sostar teaches a clamping lever (4) that has at least one cutting edge (46a-c) which is configured to sink into a material of a rear wall (3) during a movement of the clamping lever into the clamping position (par. 122).
Regarding claim 3, Stuffel as modified teaches a rear wall mounting (4, 21-22 of Sostar) that has a mounting groove (21 of Sostar) which extends transversely to a longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall (as in Fig. 11a of Stuffel & Fig. 1 of Sostar), and in which the rear wall (3 of Stuffel) can be at least partially arranged (as in Figs. 2a-3b of Sostar).
Regarding claim 4, Stuffel as modified teaches a rear wall mounting (4, 21-22 of Sostar) that comprises a play compensation device (46a-c of Sostar) configured to urge the rear wall (3 of Stuffel) in toward the drawer lateral wall (5-6 of Stuffel).
Regarding claim 6, Stuffel teaches a groove running (9) in a longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall and configured to receive an edge of a drawer base (2), wherein the groove has an upper mounting web (13) and a lower mounting web (14) spaced therefrom so as to define a space between the upper and lower mounting webs in which the edge of the drawer base can be arranged (Fig. 15), the upper and lower mounting webs running essentially parallel to one another (Fig. 16), and wherein a lateral surface (17) of the drawer lateral wall is formed from a one-piece sheet metal piece (par. 19), and the groove together with the upper and lower mounting webs is formed into the sheet metal piece by bending (par. 19). It is noted that the groove does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “by bending” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the groove. Therefore, the claimed groove is not a different and unobvious groove from that of Stuffel.
Regarding claim 7, Stuffel teaches fastening means (10) for fastening the edge of the drawer base (3) that are arranged on (Fig. 5) the groove (9).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that, in Sostar, the pivot axis (A) is parallel the direction in which the rear wall (3) is inserted into the wall mounting (4, 21-22); and in Stuffel, the rear wall (3) is inserted into the wall mounting (8) in a horizontal direction. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Stuffel as modified, the pivot axis (A of Sostar) would be parallel to the horizontal direction in which the rear wall (3 of Stuffel) is inserted into the wall mounting (8 of Stuffel & 4 of Sostar). Consequently, Stuffel as modified would teach a pivot axis (A of Sostar) that extends essentially horizontally in a state of use of the drawer lateral wall (5-6 of Stuffel).
Regarding claim 9, Sostar teaches at least one cutting edge (46a-c) of the clamping lever includes a plurality of cutting edges (46a-c).
Regarding claim 12, Sostar teaches a clamping lever (4) of a clamping device (4) that is one of at least two clamping levers (4) spaced apart from one another (Fig. 9b & 10b).
Regarding claim 13, Stuffel teaches an arrangement comprising: the drawer lateral wall (5-6); and at least one drawer extraction guide (60) which includes a body rail (61) to be connected to a furniture body, and at least one drawer rail (62) displaceable relative of the body rail.
Regarding claim 14, Stuffel teaches at least one coupling device (implied by par. 26-27), with which a drawer lateral wall (5-6) can be coupled (Fig. 14) to a drawer extraction guide (60).
Regarding claim 15, Stuffel teaches an arrangement (1, 60) that has a rear wall (3), a front wall (par. 17), and/or a drawer base (2), wherein the rear wall and the drawer base can be fastened to the drawer lateral wall by a common joining movement (i.e., by sliding 2-3 towards 5-6 - see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Stuffel teaches fastening means (10) that include claws (16); or the fastening means are configured to fasten the edge of the drawer base (3) in a clamping manner (Fig. 5); or the fastening means are arranged on the lower mounting web (14) of the groove (9); or the fastening means are formed in one piece in the sheet metal piece (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 20, Sostar teaches at least two clamping levers (4) that are arranged substantially mirror-symmetrically (Figs. 9b & 10b).
Regarding claim 21, Stuffel teaches an arrangement (1, 60) that has a rear wall (3) and a drawer base (2), and wherein the rear wall and the drawer base each have a substantially same thickness (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Stuffel teaches a rear wall (3) and a drawer base (2) that have the substantially same unspecified thickness (Fig. 2). Additionally, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of Stuffel as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making both the rear wall & drawer base 0.9 cm thick, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the arrangement (e.g., intended use of the arrangement, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Stuffel as modified would teach a rear wall (3 of Stuffel) and a drawer base (2 of Stuffel) that have substantially the same thickness (i.e., 0.9 cm), which is less than 1 cm.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuffel (DE102017103595) & Sostar (20220228615) in view of Zhou (20220055710).
Regarding claim 10, Stuffel as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including clamping levers (4 of Sostar); but fail(s) to teach a mounting device. However, Zhou teaches a mounting device (13, 312) that holds a lever (31) in a first position (Fig. 5) and in a second position releases the movement of the lever (par. 26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a mounting device, as taught by Zhou, to each of the clamping levers of Stuffel as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent extraneous movement thereby. Hence, Stuffel as modified would teach least one mounting device (13, 312 of Zhou) that provided which holds the at least one clamping lever (4 of Stuffel) in a first position in an assembly position and in a second position releases the movement of the at least one clamping lever into the clamping position (as in par. 26 of Zhou).
Regarding claim 11, Stuffel as modified teaches at least one mounting device (13, 312 of Zhou) that is designed as a rotatably mounted latch (as in Figs. 2-5 of Zhou), which has a first end (312 of Zhou) for holding the clamping lever (4 of Stuffel) in the assembly position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 16, & 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Sostar’s clamping device does not necessarily require both panels to be made of wood; in par. 122, Sostar states: “In one embodiment, the ridges are adapted to cut into the wall 27 of the hole 22. In one embodiment, the ridges are adapted to cut into the adjacent panel 3 as disclosed in FIG. 5B. And, in one embodiment, the ridges are adapted to cut into both the adjacent panel 3 and into the wall 27 of the hole 22.” Hence, Stuffel teaches an embodiment in which the cutting edges (46a-c) of the clamping lever (4) are designed only to sink into a material of the rear wall (3), and not into the material of the lateral wall (2). Applicant’s other arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights