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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0206636 A1 (Held) in view of CN 112155351 A (Wu ‘351) and DE 10 2017 103 595 A1 (Stuffel).
With respect to claim 1: Held discloses a drawer lateral wall (side wall 11, 12) for a drawer (“drawer” @ [0024]), comprising: a groove (receiving groove 17, 18) running in a longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall for receiving an edge of a drawer base (bottom panel 10 – see Figs. 1-4), the groove having an upper mounting web (not-numbered upper horizontal wall) and a lower mounting web (not-numbered lower horizontal wall) spaced apart from the upper mounting web and running parallel to the upper mounting web (at least Figs. 5-9), the edge of the drawer base to be arranged between the upper mounting web and the lower mounting web (at least Figs. 1 and 4), wherein a side surface of the drawer lateral wall (bent side part 11.2) is formed from a one-piece sheet metal piece (see [0024] regarding part 11.2 made of sheet metal), the groove with the upper mounting web and the lower mounting web being formed into the sheet metal piece by bending (at least [0024]-[0028]), wherein the drawer lateral wall forms a hollow profile (hollow interior space defined by wall 11, 12), wherein at least two profile bodies (fitting parts 21, 25) spaced apart from one another along the longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall (spaced in the front-rear longitudinal direction) are inserted into the hollow profile (at least Figs. 5-9), the at least two profile bodies being configured to stabilize the hollow profile in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall (the left-and-right, lateral direction through the wall 11, 12), wherein each of the at least two profile bodies has a shape corresponding to an inner shape of the hollow profile (at least Figs. 5-11), and has the same cross-sectional shape as the sheet metal piece at least in a region of the groove (each fitting part 21 and 25 has a grooved portion of the same cross-sectional shape as groove 17, 18), wherein the drawer lateral wall has a main portion with a thickness, and has the region of the groove with a reduced thickness relative to the thickness of the main portion (see the annotated image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Held’s bent side part 11.2 is relied upon for the claimed “one-piece sheet metal piece”. This bent side part 11.2 does not meet “wherein the sheet metal piece form a hollow profile having a U-shaped cross section” as claimed. Held’s parts 11.1 and 11.2 (and/or 12.1 and 12.2) are not formed from a one-piece sheet metal piece; they are separate components attached together.
Both Wu ‘351 and Stuffel show it is known in the drawer art to form a lateral wall frame member as a single, integral piece. Wu ‘351’s side plate 1 is a one-piece member that defines a cavity 5.The inserting part 9 of a connecting part 3 for a back plate 2 of the drawer is inserted into said cavity 5. Stuffel’s side frame 5 is a one-piece member that defines a hollow chamber 4 “on which a mounting mechanism for a front panel can be arranged”.
See Held Figs. 5-6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s parts 11.1 and 11.2 to be bent from a single sheet metal piece, similarly to Wu ‘351’s and Stuffel’s inventions, in order to eliminate the assembly step of joining the two parts 11.1 and 11.2 together. This is easier for a person assembling the drawer.
In such a modification, it is obvious to install Held’s fitting parts 21, 25 from the front and rear of the integrated parts 11.1 and 11.2 – similarly to Wu ‘351’s invention. The integrated parts 11.1 and 11.2 meet “wherein the sheet metal piece forms a hollow profile having a U-shaped cross section” as claimed. The integrated parts 11.1 and 11.2 meet “formed from a one-piece sheet metal piece” as claimed.
Further with respect to the claimed “region of the groove with a reduced thickness relative to the thickness of the main portion”, see Held Figs. 5-9 and the annotated image above. Held’s bent side parts 11.1, 11.2 define therebetween a hollow interior space in the region of the receiving groove 17, and said hollow interior space accommodates a lower flange or extension portion of each of the fitting parts 21, 25. Where said lower flange or extension portion of each fitting part 21, 25 fits between the bent side parts 11.1, 11.2 is the claimed “region of the groove with a reduced thickness relative to the thickness of the main portion”.
Held does not disclose “the reduced thickness in the region of the groove being between one third and one half of the thickness of the main portion of the drawer lateral wall” as claimed.
Held does not specify the required dimensions and/or relative dimensions in order to meet the claimed range of relative dimensions. However, Held Figs. 9-15 and the annotated image above show that the thickness at the region of the groove is significantly less than the thickness at the main portion of the wall.
Compare Stuffel Fig. 5 and 14-15. See the annotated images of Stuffel Figs. 5 and 14-15 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
341
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
526
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Stuffel Figs. 5 and 14, the thickness in the region of the groove that receives bottom 2 is at least close to one third of the thickness of the main portion of the side frame 5. In Fig. 14, a bent bridge 53 and connecting portion 21 are provided in the region of the groove as connecting means welded or glued together. In Stuffel Fig. 15, the thickness in the region of the groove that receives bottom 2 is more than half the thickness of the main portion of the side frame 5. In Fig. 15, a pullout guide 60 is provided in the region of the groove and inside the side frame 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s side wall 11, 12 to have the wall thickness at the region of the receiving groove 17, 18 between one third and one half the thickness of the main portion of the side wall 11, 12 in order to 1) provide welded or glued fastening means between Held’s fitting parts 21, 25 and the as-modified integral side wall 11, 12 similarly to Stuffel Figs. 5 and 14, and/or 2) provide space for mounting of a pullout guide 60 inside Held’s side wall 11, 12 similarly to Stuffel Fig. 15.
With respect to claim 2: Held, as modified, meets wherein the drawer lateral wall is substantially cuboid-shaped (Held Fig. 9 shows “substantially cuboid-shaped” in the same or similar way as Applicant’s Fig. 5) and/or substantially rectangular in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall (Held Fig. 9 shows “substantially rectangular in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the drawer lateral wall” in the same or similar way as Applicant’s Fig. 5), and/or wherein the drawer lateral wall has an outer surface aligned parallel to the side surface with the groove (the outer, vertical surface of part 11.1 is parallel to the vertical side surface of groove 17; the outer, vertical surface of part 11.2 is parallel to the vertical side surface of groove 17).
With respect to claim 3: Held, as modified, meets wherein the groove is recessed into the drawer lateral wall relative to the side surface (Held Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 4: Held, as modified, meets wherein the main portion of the drawer lateral wall has a substantially constant thickness (Held Fig. 9 shows “substantially constant thickness” in the same or similar way as Applicant’s Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 5: Held, as modified, does not meet “further comprising a fastener arranged on the groove and configured to fasten an edge of the drawer base” as claimed.
Stuffel discloses a first receiving channel 9 for the bottom 2 of a drawer. The channel 9 includes elastic claws 10 that fasten the bottom 2 and press the bottom 2 into the upper wall 13 of the channel 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bottom, horizontal wall of Held’s groove 17 to include Stuffel’s claws 10, in order to fix Held’s bottom panel 10 in the groove 17 similarly to Stuffel’s invention.
With respect to claim 6: Held, as modified, meets wherein a first one of the at least two profile bodies (fitting part 21) is arranged in a front region of the drawer lateral wall and is configured to hold a front wall (facing 15, via fitting part 20), and/or a second one of the at least two profile bodies (fitting part 25) is arranged in a rear region of the drawer lateral wall and is configured to hold a rear wall (back wall 13), and/or a third one of the at least two profile bodies is arranged in a central region of the drawer lateral wall.
With respect to claim 7: Held, as modified, meets wherein the at least two profile bodies includes a back wall holder (fitting part 25), configured to hold a back wall (back wall 13) transversely to the drawer lateral wall (Held Figs. 1 and 13-15), the back wall holder having a clamping device (detent hooks 26) configured to hold the back wall in a clamping manner (via detent receptacles 27).
With respect to claim 8: Held, as modified, meets an arrangement comprising: the drawer lateral wall according to claim 1.
Held does not disclose “a drawer extraction guide including a body rail to be connected to a furniture body and a drawer rail displaceable relative to the body rail” as claimed.
Held Fig. 1 shows parts F, which may be drawer extraction guides. However, Held remains silent as to what parts F comprise.
Stuffel discloses a pullout guide 60 comprising an upper track 62, a center rail (not numbered in Fig. 14), and a stationary guide rail integrally formed with a bracket 61.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s parts F to be Stuffel’s pullout guides 60, in order to slidably mount the drawer within an item of furniture. The stationary guide rail with bracket 61 is the claimed “body rail”, and the upper track 62 is the claimed “drawer rail”.
With respect to claim 11: Held, as modified, meets further comprising a rear wall (back wall 13), a front wall (facing 15), and/or a drawer base (bottom panel 10) and/or further comprising a rear wall (back wall 13) and a drawer base (bottom panel 10) to be fastened to the drawer lateral wall by a common joining movement (Fig. 12: back wall 13 and bottom panel 10 are both joined to side wall 11 by movement to the left and/or both back wall 13 and bottom panel 10 can be moved together to the left into groove 17 of side wall 11).
With respect to claim 12: Held, as modified, does not disclose “wherein each of the at least two profile bodies is plastic” as claimed.
Wu ‘351’s rear connecting piece 6 “is made of plastic”, and is used for connecting a back plate 2 to a side plate 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s fitting parts 21, 25 to be made of plastic, because Wu ‘351 shows it is known in the art for similar parts to be made with plastic.
With respect to claim 13: Held, as modified, meets wherein the fastener comprises a claw (Stuffel’s claws 10) on the lower mounting web of the groove (lower horizontal wall of Held’s groove 17, 18) and configured to clamp the edge of the drawer base (similarly to Stuffel’s disclosure).
Stuffel does not explicitly state that the claws 10 are “punched out” of the sheet metal piece as claimed. However, this is best understood as a product-by-process claim limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As such, the recitation “being punched out of the sheet metal piece” does not make a patentable distinction over the claws 10 of the prior art. The method of forming the claws 10 does not make the claimed apparatus different and/or unobvious from the prior art claws 10.
Further, Stuffel does state that claws 10 are integrally formed with the adapter 6 to thereby have a one-piece bent metal part. OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken that punching (e.g., with a die) is a known method step for forming bent metal parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claws 10 to be punched out of the material forming groove 17, 18 in order to use a known manufacturing process to make the wall 11, 12.
With respect to claim 15: Held, as modified, meets wherein the arrangement comprises the rear wall and the drawer base having a substantially identical thickness less than 1 cm and/or wherein the arrangement comprises the rear wall and the drawer base configured to be clamped to the drawer lateral wall by a common joining movement (Fig. 12: back wall 13 and bottom panel 10 are both joined to side wall 11 by movement to the left and/or both back wall 13 and bottom panel 10 can be moved together to the left into groove 17 of side wall 11).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0206636 A1 (Held) in view of CN 112155351 A (Wu ‘351) and DE 10 2017 103 595 A1 (Stuffel) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DE 10 2019 129 208 A1 (Meyer).
With respect to claim 9: Held, as modified, does not meet “wherein the drawer rail has a support web for supporting the drawer base and the support web is configured and arranged such that, when the drawer lateral wall is coupled to the drawer extraction guide, the support web is arranged substantially in one plane with the lower mounting web of the groove of the drawer lateral wall” as claimed.
Meyer Figs. 5A-5B show a drawer rail (23) having a support web (upper horizontal surface) for a drawer base (21) which, in a coupling state in which the drawer lateral wall (1) is coupled to the drawer extraction guide, is arranged substantially in one plane with the lower mounting web (lower horizontal wall) of the groove (7) of the drawer lateral wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s drawer and extraction guide to be connected as in Meyer’s invention, because that is one known way in the art to connect a drawer and drawer guide. This provides level support for the drawer bottom, by having the groove and the top of the drawer rail aligned.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0206636 A1 (Held) in view of CN 112155351 A (Wu ‘351) and DE 10 2017 103 595 A1 (Stuffel) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of CN 111789423 A (Wu ‘423).
With respect to claim 10: Held, as modified, does not meet “further comprising a coupling device configured to couple the drawer lateral wall to the drawer extraction guide” as claimed.
Wu ‘423 discloses front buckle matching part 28 and front buckle part 27, along with rear buckle part 9 and rear buckle matching part 10. These buckle parts 9, 27 and corresponding buckle matching parts 10, 28 are used for detachably connecting a movable slide rail 8 to a side plate 1 of a drawer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Held’s invention to include the buckle parts 9, 27 and corresponding buckle matching parts 10, 28 of Wu ‘423, in order to detachably connect the pullout guide 60 to Held’ side wall 11, 12 using prior art structures intended for that task.
With respect to claim 14: Held, as modified, meets wherein the coupling device is configured to releasably couple the drawer lateral wall to the drawer extraction guide (Wu ‘423 discloses buckle parts 9, 27 and corresponding buckle matching parts 10, 28 detachably buckled together).
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn, as being overcome by the latest claim amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made in the previous Office action are no longer relied upon, thereby rendering moot the Applicant’s arguments thereagainst. The new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made in this Office action are necessitated by the latest claim amendments.
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 ANDREW ROERSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-3185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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.
/ANDREW ROERSMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights