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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 1-3 appear to be informal figures. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For claim 1, it is unclear what dimension perimeters are defined by the limitation “the linear sliding guides having dimensions corresponding to a thickness of the fixed glass wall to which they are applied”. (Namely, it is unclear whether or not the dimensions are the same or simply similar to each other.)
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, 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speros (1,594,076). Speros teaches a table-top museum display case (Fig. 1), comprising a fixed case (1) formed by fixed glass walls surmounted by an upper openable glass door (9), which is slidingly openable with respect to the fixed case (Fig. 2), wherein the fixed glass walls and the openable glass door have, with respect to the display case, respective inner faces and outer faces connected by peripheral edges, and two linear sliding guides (6,13) between the openable glass door and the fixed case, wherein the linear sliding guides are applied i) on one side on an inner face of the openable glass door near opposite peripheral edges of the openable glass door (Fig. 3) and ii) on the other side on peripheral edges of two opposite sides of the fixed glass walls (Fig. 3), the linear sliding guides having dimensions corresponding to a thickness of the fixed glass wall to which they are applied (as best understood, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Speros further teaches that each of the two linear sliding guides comprises a fixed semi-guide (6) fixed to the peripheral edge of one of the fixed glass walls and a movable semi-guide (13) fixed to the inner face of the openable glass door. Wherein the fixed semi-guide and the movable semi-guide inherently comprise respective low sliding friction contact tracks (6). There is a coupling means (hook of 13) for constraining the movable semi-guide to the fixed semi-guide so that the movable semi-guide is free to slide horizontally with respect to the fixed semi-guide but is not free to be raised with respect to the fixed semi-guide.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvshinikov (2002/0078865) in view of Speros (1,594,076). Kuvshinikov teaches a sliding openable top/door (103,104) on a fixed case (101) wherein there are sliding guides (105,106) between the openable door and the fixed case, wherein the linear sliding guides are applied i) on one side on an inner face of the openable glass door near opposite peripheral edges of the openable glass door (Fig. 4) and ii) on the other side on peripheral edges of two opposite sides of the fixed glass walls, the linear sliding guides having dimensions corresponding to a thickness of the fixed wall to which they are applied (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
181
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 1, Kuvshinikov fails to teach that the walls and door include glass panels therein. Speros teaches a table-top museum display case (Fig. 1), comprising a fixed case (1) formed by fixed glass walls surmounted by an upper openable glass door (9). 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 case and door of Kuvshinikov by using glass panels, such as is taught by Speros, therein, for aesthetic reasons, to be able to view the inside of the case, etc.
For claim 2, Kuvshinikov in view of Speros further teaches that each of the two linear sliding guides comprises a fixed semi-guide (lower slide of 105,106) fixed to the peripheral edge of one of the fixed glass walls and a movable semi-guide (upper slide of 105,106) fixed to the inner face of the openable glass door.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvshinikov (2002/0078865) in view of Speros (1,594,076) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Hamilton (583,228). As stated above, Kuvshinikov in view of Speros teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, including a fixed semi-guide and a movable semi-guide between a case and a sliding door. For claims 3 and 4, Kuvshinikov in view of Speros fails to specifically teach rolling rollers as part of the guide assembly. Hamilton teaches rollers (4) on fixed semi-guides (5) mating with a movable semi-guide (10). 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 guide assemblies of Kuvshinikov in view of Speros by using the guide assembly of Hamilton therein, in place of the guide assemblies presently used, to provide smoother/low sliding friction moving of the door between positions.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speros (1,594,076) in view of Hamilton (583,228). As stated above, Speros teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, including a fixed semi-guide and a movable semi-guide between a case and a sliding door. For claims 3 and 4, Speros fails to specifically teach rolling rollers as part of the guide assembly. Hamilton teaches rollers (4) on fixed semi-guides (5) mating with a movable semi-guide (10). 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 case of Speros by using the guide assembly of Hamilton therein, in place of the guide assemblies presently used, to provide smoother/low sliding friction moving of the door between positions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuvshinikov (2002/0078865) in view of Speros (1,594,076) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wiester (223,828). As stated above, Kuvshinikov in view of Speros teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a sliding glass door. For claim 9, Kuvshinikov in view of Speros fails to specifically teach an auxiliary stand with the case. Wiester teaches an auxiliary stand (E), the auxiliary stand comprising a base (a; see annotated figure below) surmounted by a support structure (b) for supportingly accommodating the open sliding door (F) when open beyond a preset limit. 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 case of Kuvshinikov in view of Speros by adding an auxiliary stand, such as is taught by Wiester, therewith, to provide support for the opened sliding door.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speros (1,594,076) in view of Wiester (223,828). As stated above, Speros teaches the limitations of claim 1, including a sliding glass door on a case. For claim 9, Speros fails to teach an auxiliary stand with the case. Wiester teaches an auxiliary stand (E), the auxiliary stand comprising a base (a) surmounted by a support structure (b) for supportingly accommodating an open sliding door (F) when open beyond a preset limit. 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 case of Speros by adding an auxiliary stand, such as is taught by Wiester, therewith, to provide support for the opened sliding door.
PNG
media_image3.png
373
305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
September 28, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
