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.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, & 15 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.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, & 15, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “in particular” 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).
Regarding claim 15, the term “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-8 & 12-15 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 at least one rear wall mounting (8) with which a rear wall (3) can be held transversely to the drawer lateral wall; but fail(s) to teach a clamping device. However, Sostar teaches the inclusion, in a wall mounting (4, 21-22), of connecting means (4, 22) comprising at least one clamping device (4) by which a rear wall (3) can be held in a clamping manner, wherein the at least one clamping device has at least one clamping lever (4) movable between a clamping position (Fig. 10b) and a release position (Fig. 9b), the at least one clamping lever being mounted on the at least one wall mounting so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis (A - see Fig. 4a & par. 120), and the pivot axis running 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 add connecting means, as taught by Sostar, to each of the rear wall mountings of Stuffel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to strengthen the connection between the rear & lateral walls.
Regarding claim 2, Stuffel as modified teaches a clamping lever (4 of Sostar) that has at least one cutting edge (46a-c of Sostar) which can be sunk into the material of the rear wall (3 of Stuffel) during a movement of the clamping lever into the clamping position (as in par. 122 of Sostar).
Regarding claim 3, Stuffel teaches at least one rear wall mounting (8) that has at least one mounting groove (8) running transversely to a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2) of the drawer lateral wall (5-6), in which the rear wall (3) can be arranged in regions (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Stuffel teaches at least one rear wall mounting (8) that comprises at least one play compensation device (11), which preferably has at least one resilient tab (11), with which the rear wall (3) can be urged (Fig. 6) in the direction of the drawer lateral wall (5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Stuffel as modified teaches at least one rear wall mounting (8 of Stuffel & 4 of Sostar) that has at least one fastening device (11 of Stuffel) via which the rear wall (3 of Stuffel) can be fastened in addition to the at least one clamping device (4 of Sostar).
Regarding claim 6, Stuffel teaches a drawer lateral wall (5-6) that comprises at least one groove (9) running in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 10) of the drawer lateral wall for receiving an edge of a drawer base (2), the groove has at least one upper mounting web (13) and a lower mounting web (14) spaced therefrom and running essentially parallel (Fig. 5), between which the edge of the drawer base can be arranged (Fig. 5), at least one 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 two 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), preferably claws (10), for fastening the edge of the drawer base (2), preferably in a clamping manner, are arranged on the groove (9), preferably on the lower mounting web (14) of the groove (Fig. 5), preferably wherein the fastening means are formed in one piece in the sheet metal piece (Fig. 5), in particular punched out. It is noted that the fastening means does not depend on the process of making it; and the product-by-process limitation “in particular punched out” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the fastening means. Therefore, the claimed fastening means is not a different and unobvious fastening means from that of Stuffel.
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 runs essentially horizontally in a state of use of the drawer lateral wall (5-6 of Stuffel).
Regarding claim 12, Sostar teaches at least one clamping device (4) that has at least two clamping levers (4) spaced apart from one another (Fig. 9b & 10b).
Regarding claim 13, Stuffel teaches an arrangement (1, 60 - see Fig. 13) comprising a drawer lateral wall (5-6); and at least one drawer extraction guide (60), which has a body rail (61) to be connected to a furniture body and at least one drawer rail (62) displaceable relative thereto.
Regarding claim 14, Stuffel teaches at least one coupling device (implied by par. 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).
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
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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