DETAILED ACTION
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 May 30, 2025 & August 03, 2026, were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “energy accumulator” [Claim 6] & “load-transmitting rolling element” [Claim 16] must be clearly shown / labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both a securing device and a projection in figure 21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the 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.
Claims 1-18 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 Claim 1, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, the phrases “the force” and “the other rail” (see lines 11-13) do not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 2, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 3, the phrases “at least one closing device” line 2, and “at least one electrically actuatable adjusting element” line 3, are unclear and confusing since it is not known whether these are new and distinct features, or if they were meant to be a reference back to the previously established “at least one closing device” & “at least one electrically operable adjusting element” as set forth in Claim 1. Appropriate correction / clarification is required. In Claim 4, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 6, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment. In Claim 7, the phrase “at least one closing device with at least one electrically operable adjusting element” is unclear and confusing since it is not known whether these are new and distinct features, or if they were meant to be a reference back to the previously established “at least one closing device” & “at least one electrically operable adjusting element” as set forth in Claims 1 or 3. Appropriate correction / clarification is required. Additionally, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 8, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 9, the phrases “in particular” (multiple occurrences) and the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment; furthermore, the phrase “the drive device” line 3, does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 10, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment. In Claim 11, use of the phrase “the rail” is unclear and confusing since one cannot establish which rail (i.e., the first or second rail) is actually being defined. In Claim 13, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment. In Claim 14, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment; furthermore, the phrase “the at least one actuating element” does not have a proper antecedent basis. In Claim 15, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable; additionally, use of the conjunction “and/or” (multiple occurrences) within the claimed scope is deemed unclear, confusing and indefinite since the recitation is deemed open-ended in scope and can constitute multiple meanings; the disclosure may have support for one or all of the claimed scenario clauses individually represented by the “and/or” conjunction, but may not necessarily have support for all of the claimed scenario clauses combined within one embodiment. In Claim 16, the term “preferably” (multiple occurrences) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 17, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. In Claim 18, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually part of the claimed invention, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant unascertainable. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., [US 2020/0018098] in view of Gasser et al., [US 2014/0346941]. Chen teaches of a pull-out guide (fig. 1) for movably mounting a first furniture part {80} on a second furniture part {78}, the pull-out guide comprising: a first rail (26) to be connected to the first furniture part; and at least one second rail (24) to be connected to the second furniture part, wherein the two rails are movably mounted relative to each other (as is conventional in the art), and at least one electrically operable adjusting element (52) is provided, wherein the at least one adjusting element blocks a relative movement of the two rails in a closed position (P1) and permits the relative movement in a release position (P2), wherein at least one spring device (58) is provided which biases the at least one adjusting element into the closed position [0044], wherein the at least one adjusting element can be displaced into the release position by an actuator (such as (56) for instance) connected thereto counter to the force exerted by the spring device during a movement in a first direction relative to the other rail. Chen teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed pull-out guide as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the inclusion of a closing device associated with the pull-out guide. As to this aspect, Gasser is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a closing device (10, 20) used with a pull-out guide (fig. 3) in an analogous art. 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 Chen so as to include a closing device in view of Gasser’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the first part can be automatically returned within the second part via an automated means at a convenience to the end user. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, one of the two rails (26) has at least one upper side (upper horizontal surface as shown in fig. 2) to be connected to a lower side of the first furniture part, wherein the at least one closing device can be aligned relative to the pull-out guide in such a way that the at least one adjusting element can be moved between the closed position and the release position transversely (along a side-to-side direction relative to the rails), and wherein the at least one adjusting element can be mounted on the closing device (such as when the adjusting element and closing device are combined as a modular unit for instance). Regarding Claim 3, as modified, a drive device (such as an ejection device which is part of the drive device (20) of Gasser), by which the two rails can be driven relative to one another, wherein the at least one adjusting element can engage the drive device in a closed position and release the drive device in a release position (such as when the adjusting element and drive device are combined as a modular unit). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, the at least one adjusting element can engage the drive device in a closed position in such a way that the relative movement of the two rails in at least one direction is blocked by the contact of the at least one adjusting element with the drive device in at least one point of contact (such as when (54) is coupled to (44)). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the at least one drive device is designed as an ejection device (Gasser discloses that the drive device can be either of an ejection or retraction device), wherein one of the two rails can be ejected by the ejection device starting from a first position, in which the two rails are retracted relative to one another, in the direction of a second position, in which the two rails are extended relative to one another in the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the at least one drive device has at least one energy accumulator (such as (12) of Gasser) which is a spring element, preferably wherein the energy accumulator has at least one spring element. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the pull-out guide further comprising at least one driver ((1) of Gasser) to be brought into operative connection with the at least one drive device, wherein the at least one driver and the at least one closing device are arranged on a common base plate ((21) of Gasser) and can be fastened together as a cohesive structural unit to one of the two rails. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the operative connection is provided by a force transmission (via (6) of Gasser) into at least one point of contact (along (5) of Gasser) between the drive device and the driver. Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the at least one adjusting element having at least one receiving device (68) that is suitable for receiving a limiting device {such as (54)}. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, one of the two rails (26) and a base plate (36) each have at least one interface (vertically oriented side surfaces), in which the base plate can be fastened to the one of the two rails ( fig. 2), wherein the interfaces fastened to one another form a non-destructively detachable positive fit (shown). Regarding Claim 11, as modified, wherein it is possible for the at least one adjusting element, after its displacement, to be reset by the spring device into the closed position during a further movement of the actuator connected thereto. Regarding Claim 12, as modified, a base plate ((21) of Gasser) of the closing device limits a movement of the at least one adjusting element in at least one direction (via (22)). Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the closing device comprises: at least one switch (switchable coupling element (5) of Gasser), which can be actuated by one of the two rails. Regarding Claim 14, as modified, wherein the closing device comprises: a bearing device ((4 & 6) of Gasser) on which at least one actuating element (5) is mounted. Regarding Claim 15, as modified, wherein an inherent energy interface is provided for connection to an energy storage device (as noted in [0054] of Chen, a power source / storage source is available since the driving device can be out of power). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, load-transmitting rolling element(s) would inherently be arranged between the first rail and the second rail in order to provide enhanced movement between the rails with reduced friction as is conventional in the art. Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the pull-out guide is arranged on a lower side of the first furniture part as an undermount guide (note fig. 12 of Chen). Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the first rail of the pull-out guide is connected to a drawer (80) and the second rail of the pull-out guide is connected to a furniture body (78).
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 pull-out guide assemblies and/or closing / driving devices.
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
September 22, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights