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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on June 2, 2025 & August 19, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 accumulator and load-transmitting rolling element must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. (claims 15 and 16)
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 Fig. 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. 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.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, and 12-18, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, and 12-16, the use of the conjunction "and/or" 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.
For claims 4 and 5, lines 8 and 9, respectively, it is unclear whether or not the “a rail” is the one of the rails claimed previously.
The remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 19/223964 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach a pull-out guide between a furniture part and movable furniture part comprising two rails; a drive device/ejection device and a closing device with an electrically operable adjusting element. The drive device as a force storage member with a spring element. There is a driver which can be brought into operative connection with the drive device. A force transmission is in contact between the drive device and driver. There is a base plate fastened to one of the two rails. The adjusting element comprises: a hook, an adjusting element fastening device and a receiving device. The closing device comprising: a control circuit, a motor, an electrical line, a switch, a housing, an action transmitter, a bearing device and a spring device.
Since claims 1-18 are anticipated by the claims of the co-pending application, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of the claims of the co- pending application in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-18. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993) Since claims 1-18 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the co-pending application, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 a pull-out guide (Fig. 1) movably mounting a first furniture part (80) on a second furniture part (78), the 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 mounted so as to be movable relative to each other, wherein a further rail (28) is mounted so as to be movable between the two rails, at least one drive device (62), wherein a device (52) with at least one electrically operable adjusting element is provided, wherein the at least one adjusting element engages a locking member in a closed position (P1) and releases the member in a release position (P2). While Chen teaches applicant's basic inventive claimed pull-out guide as stated above, the reference 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 he second part via an automated means at a convenience to the end user.
For claim 2, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one adjusting element engages in a closed position in the drive device in such a way that the relative movement of the two rails in at least one direction is blocked, in a form-fitting manner, 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 of Chen is coupled to 44 now located on the drive device).
For claim 3, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one drive device is designed as an ejection device (Glasser discloses that the drive device can be either an ejection or retraction device), wherein one of the two rails is ejectable by the ejection device from a first position, in which the two rails are retracted relative to each other, in a direction of a second position, in which the two rails are extended relative to each other in a longitudinal direction, or wherein the at least one drive device is designed as a retraction device, wherein one of the two rails can be retracted by the retraction device from a second position, in which the two rails are extended relative to each other, in a direction of a first position, in which the two rails are retracted relative to each other in a longitudinal direction.
For claim 4, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one drive device has at least one force storage member (12 of Glasser), wherein the force storage member has at least one spring element (paragraph 0060), wherein the at least one force storage member can be charged by a relative movement of the two rails or can be discharged by a relative movement of the two rails, or the drive device is detachably fastenable and/or fastened to one of the two rails to a rail which is to be connected to a movable furniture part.
For claim 5, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that at least one driver (1 of Gasser) is provided, which can be brought into operative connection with the at least one drive device, and at least one closing device (10,20) with at least one electrically operable adjusting element (52) is provided, 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 in a detachable manner, together as a connected assembly unit to one of the two rails, to a rail which is to be connected to an immovable furniture part, or to one of the two furniture parts.
For claim 6, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the operative connection is provided by a force transmission (via 6 of Gasser) in at least one point of contact between the drive device and the driver.
For claim 7, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that one of the two rails (26 of Chen) and a base plate (36) each have at least one intersection point via which the base plate can be fastened or is fastened to one of the two rails (Fig. 2) , wherein the intersection points fastened to one another form a non-destructively detachable form-fitting and/or force-fitting connection.
For claim 8, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one adjusting element blocks a relative movement of the two rails in a closed position and permits such movement in a release position, wherein at least one spring device (58 of Chen) is provided which biases the at least one adjusting element into the closed position, wherein the at least one adjusting element can be displaced into the release position by one of the two rails or an actuator connected thereto during a movement in a first direction relative to the other rail counter to the force exerted by the spring device.
For claim 9, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one adjusting element can be reset to the closed position by the spring device after being displaced by further movement of the rail or the actuator connected thereto.
For claim 10, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that one of the two rails has at least one upper side to be connected to an underside of the first furniture part (Fig. 12 of Chen), wherein the at least one closing device is aligned relative to the pull-out guide such that the at least one adjusting element between the closed position and the release position can be moved transversely, perpendicularly, (along a side-to-side direction relative to the rails) to a longitudinal direction of the pull-out guide and in the direction of the upper side of the rail, wherein the at least one adjusting element is mounted on the closing device.
For claim 11, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that 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).
For claim 12, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the at least one adjusting element in the form of a substantially elongated component, comprises: a hook (54) which, in the closed position of the at least one adjusting element, engages in the drive device at least one receiving device (68) that is suitable for receiving a limiting device.
For claim 13, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the closing device comprises: at least one switch (switchable coupling element 5 of Gasser) which can be actuated by one of the two rails and/or an electric motor.
For claim 14, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that the closing device comprises a bearing device (4 & 6 of Glasser) on which the at least one adjusting element (5) is mounted.
For claim 15, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that an energy interface for connection to an energy storage device (as noted in paragraph 0054 of Chen, a power source / storage source is available since the driving device can be out of power).
For claim 16, Chen in view of Gasser further teaches that load-transferring rolling element would inherently be arranged between the first rail to be connected to the first furniture part and the at least one second rail to be connected to the second furniture part in order to provide enhanced movement between the rails with reduced friction as is conventional in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited teaching 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 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 29, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights