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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/29/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 & 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Premo (2267043) in view of Mark (5735610).
Regarding claim 1, Premo teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (12); a second component (5); and a sliding member (16) disposed between the first and second components; and a retention system (10 & 13-15) adapted to retain the sliding member between the first component and the second component, wherein the retention system comprises a retention frame (10) and at least one spring element (15), wherein the sliding member is disposed between the retention frame and the spring element (Figs. 1 & 4), wherein the spring element provides a biasing force on the sliding member (implied by Figs. 1 & 4; col. 2, lines 47-48; and col. 4, lines 15-16). Premo fail(s) to teach cylindrical sliding members having an aspect ratio of 1.1:1 to about 1000:1.
However, Mark teaches a sliding member (44) that comprises an elongated cylinder (44 - see col. 4, lines 24-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a sliding member, as taught by Mark, for each of the sliding members of Premo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the first & second components to slide relative to each other (as suggested by col. 4, lines 45-47 of Mark), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another.
Hence, Premo as modified would teach cylindrical sliding members (44 of Mark) each having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defining an aspect ratio, as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of an unspecified value (as in Fig. 2 of Mark). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and the instant application fails to supply any specific rationale for making the aspect ratio any particular value or range of values. It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Premo as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the aspect ratio of each sliding member 2:1, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Premo as modified would teach sliding members (44 of Mark) each having an aspect ratio (i.e., 2:1) from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1.
Regarding claim 2, Premo as modified teaches a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (12 of Premo); a second component (5 of Premo); and a plurality of sliding members (44 of Mark) disposed between the first and second components; and a retention system comprising a plurality of spring elements (15 of Premo), wherein a first spring element (i.e., one of 15 of Premo) of the plurality of spring elements provides a first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 15 of Premo) on a first sliding member (i.e., one of 44 of Mark) of the plurality of sliding members, and a second spring element (i.e., another of 15 of Premo) of the plurality of spring elements provides a second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 15 of Premo) on a second sliding member (i.e., another of 44 of Mark) of the plurality of sliding members, wherein the first biasing force is independent from the second biasing force (implied by Fig. 1 of Premo, showing each of 15 of Premo being spaced from the others), and wherein the each sliding member (44 of Mark) in the plurality of sliding members comprise an elongated cylinder (as in Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 24-29 of Mark) having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defines an aspect ratio (i.e., 2:1 - see par. 7 above), as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1.
Regarding claim 3, Premo teaches a spring element (15) that comprises a plurality of spring elements (15).
Regarding claim 4, Premo as modified teaches a spring element (15 of Premo) that contacts a sliding member (44 of Mark) and at least one of (Figs. 1 & 4 of Premo) the first component (12 of Premo) or the second component (5 of Premo).
Regarding claim 5, Premo as modified teaches a spring element (15 of Premo) that contacts the sliding member (44 of Mark) and both of (Figs. 1 & 4 of Premo) the first component (12 of Premo, via 13-14 of Premo) and the second component (5 of Premo, via 44 of Mark).
Regarding claim 6, Premo teaches a spring element (15) fixed (via 13) to the first component (12).
Regarding claim 7, Premo teaches a spring element (15) that fits within a bore (i.e., hole containing 13) of the first component (12).
Regarding claim 8, Premo as modified teaches a retention frame (10 of Premo) that comprises a plurality of openings (Figs. 1-2 of Premo), each opening adapted to house (as in Figs. 1-2 of Premo & Figs. 2-3 of Mark) at least one sliding member (44 of Mark).
Regarding claim 9, Premo teaches a retention frame (10) fixed to a first component (12).
Regarding claims 11, Premo as modified teaches a sliding member (44 of Mark) adapted to slide (as in col. 4, lines 38-45 of Mark) with respect to the second component (5 of Premo).
Regarding claims 12, Premo teaches a first component (12) that is adapted to longitudinally translate (implied by Figs. 1 & 3-4 and col. 1, lines 1-4) with respect to a second component (5).
Regarding claim 13, Premo teaches a second component (5) adapted to longitudinally translate (implied by Figs. 1 & 3-4 and col. 1, lines 1-4) with respect to a first component (12).
Regarding claim 14, Mark teaches a sliding member (44) that comprises a slide pin (44 - see Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 15, Premo as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a spring element (15 of Premo) that provides a biasing force on at least one of the plurality of sliding members (44 of Mark). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Premo as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the biasing force of each spring element 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Premo as modified teaches an unspecified first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 15 of Premo) and an unspecified second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 15 of Premo). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Premo as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 15N & the second biasing force 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, Premo as modified teaches an unspecified first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 15 of Premo) and an unspecified second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 15 of Premo). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Premo as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 10N & the second biasing force 15N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Premo teaches a first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 15) that is the same (implied by use of “15” to label each of the springs, which implies that they are identical to each other) as a second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 15).
Regarding claim 19, Premo teaches at least one spring element (15) that is a coil spring (15). See Figs. 1 & 4.
Claims 1-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paillet (EP1167790) in view of Mark (5735610).
Regarding claim 1, Paillet teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (6; or 6 & 30); a second component (4); and a sliding member (36) disposed between the first and second components (Fig. 1); and a retention system (14, 26, 30, 38; or 14, 26, 38) adapted to retain the sliding member between the first component and the second component (Fig. 1), wherein the retention system comprises a retention frame (38) and at least one spring element (26), wherein the sliding member is disposed between the retention frame and the spring element (Fig. 1), wherein the spring element provides a biasing force on the sliding member (par. 30-31 & 34). Paillet fail(s) to teach cylindrical sliding members.
However, Mark teaches a sliding member (44) that comprises an elongated cylinder (44 - see col. 4, lines 24-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a sliding member, as taught by Mark, for each of the sliding members of Paillet, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the first & second components to slide relative to each other (as suggested by col. 4, lines 45-47 of Mark), and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known sliding means for another.
Hence, Paillet as modified would teach cylindrical sliding members (44 of Mark) each having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defining an aspect ratio, as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of an unspecified value (as in Fig. 2 of Mark). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04); and the instant application fails to supply any specific rationale for making the aspect ratio any particular value or range of values. It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the aspect ratio of each sliding member 2:1, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.). Hence, Paillet as modified would teach sliding members (44 of Mark) each having an aspect ratio (i.e., 2:1) from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1.
Regarding claim 2, Paillet as modified teaches a linear motion assembly comprising: a first component (6 of Paillet); a second component (4 of Paillet); and a plurality of sliding members (44 of Mark) disposed between the first and second components (as in Fig. 1 of Paillet & Fig. 3 of Mark); and a retention system (14, 26, 30, 38 of Paillet) comprising a plurality of spring elements (26 of Paillet), wherein a first spring element (i.e., one of 26 of Paillet) of the plurality of spring elements provides a first biasing force (par. 30-31 & 34 of Paillet) on a first sliding member (i.e., one of 44 of Mark) of the plurality of sliding members, and a second spring element (i.e., another of 26 of Paillet) of the plurality of spring elements provides a second biasing force (par. 30-31 & 34 of Paillet) on a second sliding member (i.e., another of 44 of Mark) of the plurality of sliding members, wherein the first biasing force is independent from the second biasing force (implied Fig. 1 of Paillet, showing separation between each of 26 of Paillet), and wherein each sliding member in the plurality of sliding members comprise an elongated cylinder (as in Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 24-29 of Mark) having a length, Lsp, and a diameter, Dsp and defines an aspect ratio (i.e., 2:1 - see par. 28 above), as measured by a ratio of the length to width, of from at least 1.1:1 to about 1000:1.
Regarding claim 3, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that comprises a plurality of spring elements (26). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Paillet as modified teaches a spring element (26 of Paillet) that contacts a sliding member (44 of Mark) and at least one (Fig. 1 of Paillet) of the first component (6 of Paillet) or the second component (4 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 5, Paillet as modified teaches a spring element (26 of Paillet) that contacts a sliding member (44 of Mark, via 30A-30B of Paillet) and both (Fig. 1 of Paillet) of the first component (6 of Paillet, via 20 of Paillet) and the second component (4 of Paillet, via 30A-B of Paillet & 44 of Mark).
Regarding claim 6, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) fixed to a first component (6).
Regarding claim 7, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that fits within a bore (12) of the first component (6).
Regarding claim 8, Paillet as modified teaches a retention frame (38 of Paillet, as modified) that comprises a plurality of openings (Fig. 1 of Paillet), each opening adapted to house at least one sliding member (44 of Mark).
Regarding claim 9, Paillet teaches a retention frame (38) fixed to a first component (6). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, Paillet as modified teaches a first component (6 of Paillet; or 6 & 30 of Paillet) that has a concave exterior surface (12 of Paillet; or grooves in 30 of Paillet) adapted to house (as in Fig. 1 of Paillet & Fig. 3 of Mark) the sliding member (44 of Mark).
Regarding claim 11, Paillet as modified teaches a sliding member (44 of Mark) adapted to slide (as in col. 4, lines 38-45 of Mark) with respect to the second component (4 of Paillet).
Regarding claim 12, Paillet teaches a first component (6) adapted to longitudinally translate (par. 35) with respect to a second component (4).
Regarding claim 13, Paillet teaches a second component (4) adapted to longitudinally translate (par. 35) with respect to a first component (6).
Regarding claim 14, Mark teaches a sliding member (44) that comprises a slide pin (44 - see Fig. 2 & col. 4, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 15, Paillet as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a spring element (26 of Paillet) that provides a biasing force on at least one of the plurality of sliding members (44 of Mark). Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the biasing force of each of the spring element 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Paillet as modified teaches unspecified first & second biasing forces. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 15N & the second biasing force 10N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, Paillet as modified teaches unspecified first & second biasing forces. Additionally, routine optimization of a variable has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Paillet as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by making the first biasing force 10N & the second biasing force 15N, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the assembly (e.g., intended use of the assembly, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Paillet teaches a first biasing force (i.e., biasing force of one of 26) that is the same (implied by use of “26” to label each of the springs, which implies that they are identical to each other) as a second biasing force (i.e., biasing force of another of 26).
Regarding claim 20, Paillet teaches a spring element (26) that is an elastomeric material (par. 23, 40, & 43) providing a biasing force while compressed (par. 30-31 & 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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