DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed December 15, 2025, with respect to the outstanding 112(b) & double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon review, some of the clarity aspects have been obviated, but the issue relating to the “portion” subject matter is still present; while the changes to the claimed scope have effectively obviated the previously applied double patenting rejection. As to the application of the prior art rejections, the position is taken that Dopp et al., remains a viable reference and while
applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered, they are deemed moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference as mapped within the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 25 & 31 are objected to because of the following informality: Using Claim 21 as an example, in line 20, it is believed that the phrase “wherein link portion and second rail portion as configured such” should be changed to --wherein the link portion and the second rail portion are configured such--. Appropriate clarification / correction is required.
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 21-40 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. Claims 12, 25 & 31 fail to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively construct and define the “slider” so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed. Looking at Claim 21 for illustrative purposes, the claim merely recites a slider comprising a “first rail portion”, a “link portion”, a “second rail portion”, a “first locking portion” and a “second locking portion” as the only positively claimed features, whereas the remaining claimed recitations constitute functional language which is not limited to specific structure and only links structure to what it does, as opposed to what it actually is. The claim further links positively recited features (e.g., first rail portion & second rail portion) to functional activity with regards to non-positively recited features, such as the “sidewall of a case” & “tray” for instance, whereby the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant is unascertainable. Again, use of the term “portion(s)” employed throughout the claims, i.e., “a first rail portion”, “a second rail portion”, “a link portion” etc., is not clearly understood since it is not clear if the “rail(s)” / “link” themselves are being claimed or just a “portion” of these elements are being claimed, thereby also rendering the metes and bounds of patent protection being claimed by applicant unascertainable. Applicant argued in the reply that the use of “portion” refers to a portion of the claimed slider and such use is substantiated when read in light of the specification. The examiner does not agree with this assessment since the specification specifically denotes the features in question as a “first elongate rail”, a “second elongate rail”, and an “elongate link member” etc., which connote a different meaning than a “first rail portion” that can be interpreted as any portion along a first rail for example and not necessarily the whole rail. As such, the position is maintained that the numerous instances of “portion(s)” relating to positively claimed elements in conjunction with the numerous instances of functional language devoid of positively claimed structural connectivity linking the elements presents a clarity issue. Additionally, in Claims 21, 25 & 31, line 1 respectively, the recitations of “the fiber optic cables” and “the tray” do not have a proper antecedent basis; along with “the edge of a tray” [Claim 21], “the sidewall” [Claim 25] and “the slot portion” [Claim 30]. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dopp et al., [US 6,244,678]. Dopp teaches of a slider (fig. 1) configured to avoid damage to fiber optic cables when a tray (drawer) is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {if so desired by an end user}, comprising: a first rail portion (2) configured to be attached to a sidewall of a case {cabinet}; a link portion (4) configured to slide along the first rail portion between a first position {retracted position} and a second position {partially extended position} relative to the first rail portion; a second rail portion (6) configured to be attached to an edge of a tray {side edge of drawer} and configured to slide with the tray along the link portion between a third position {by way of example as shown in fig. 11} and a fourth position {by way of example as shown in fig. 12} relative to the link portion; a first locking portion (8) configured to secure the link portion to the first rail in the first position {disclosed}; a second locking portion (such as a portion of 46 or 48) configured to secure the second rail portion to the link portion in the third position {fig. 11}; wherein the first locking portion includes a latch portion (12) configured to move from a lock position to an unlock position when the second rail portion moves to the third position to cause the link portion to be released from the first position and allowed to move towards the second position {the second rail is released as the latch portion is unlocked during movement}; wherein when the second rail portion is in the third position, movement of the link portion into the first position causes the second locking portion to be disengaged to allow the second rail portion to move towards the fourth position {such would be the case when the second rail portion is pulled outward and the link portion is simultaneously moved towards a retracted position}; and wherein the link portion and the second rail portion are configured such that fiber optic cables associated with the tray do not engage the link portion to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {such as when cables are housed within the drawer for instance as dependent upon the needs of an end user}. As to Claim 22, the link portion is positioned between the first rail portion and the second rail portion (note fig. 1). As to Claim 23, the second locking portion comprises a friction fit between the link portion and the second rail portion when the second rail portion is in the third position (such as shown in fig. 11 for instance). As to Claim 24, an abutment portion (such as the other of (46 or 48) for instance) on the second rail portion is configured to move the latch portion to the unlocked position (such as when (42, 44) are depressed and released when (46, 48) move past). As to Claim 25, again Dopp teaches of a slider (fig. 1) configured to avoid damage to fiber optic cables when a tray {drawer} is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {if so desired by an end user}, comprising: a first rail portion (2) configured to be attached to a sidewall {such as a sidewall of a cabinet}; a link portion (4) configured to move along the first rail portion between a first position {retracted position} and a second position {partially extended position} relative to the first rail portion; a second rail portion (6) configured to move along the link portion between a third position {by way of example as shown in fig. 11} and a fourth position {by way of example as shown in fig. 12} relative to the link portion; a first locking portion (8) configured to cause the link portion to be secured to the first rail portion in the first position {disclosed}; a second locking portion (such as a portion of 46 or 48) configured to cause the second rail portion to be secured to the link portion in the third position {fig. 11}; wherein when the second rail portion moves to the third position, the first locking portion is configured to move to a disengaged state and the second locking portion is configured to move to an engaged state, as to cause the link portion to be released from the first position for movement towards the second position {the second rail is released as the latch portion is unlocked during movement} and the second rail portion to be secured to the link portion in the third position {fig. 11}; and wherein the link portion and the second rail portion are configured such that fiber optic cables associated with the tray do not engage the link portion to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {such as when cables are housed within the drawer for instance as dependent upon the needs of an end user}. As to Claim 26, the second locking portion is configured to be disengaged {such as in fig. 12 for instance} and the first locking portion engaged by movement of the link portion into the first position when the second rail portion is in the third position {such as when the second rail portion is pulled outward and the link portion is retracted back}, thereby releasing the second rail portion from the link portion for movement towards the fourth position and securing the link portion in the first position {second rail portion fully extended while link portion locked in place with first rail portion}. As to Claim 27, the first locking portion comprises a latch portion (36) on the link portion configured to engage a slot portion {25} on a sidewall {21} to secure the link portion in the first position. As to Claim 28, the second locking portion comprises a friction fit between the link portion and the second rail portion when the second rail portion is in the third position (such as shown in fig. 11 for instance). As to Claim 29, the second locking portion is configured to be disengaged as the second rail portion moves from the third position towards the fourth position (clearly shown). As to Claim 30, an abutment portion (such as the other of 46 or 48 for instance) on the second rail portion is configured to force the latch portion out of a slot portion {25} when the second rail portion is moved into the third position (such as when (42, 44) are depressed and released when (46, 48) move past). As to Claim 31, again, Dopp teaches of a slider (fig. 1) configured to avoid damage to fiber optic cables when a tray {drawer} is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {if so desired by an end user} comprising: a first rail portion (2) configured to be attached to a surface {such as a side surface of a drawer}; a link portion (4) configured to move along the first rail portion between a first position {retracted position} and a second position {partially extended position} relative to the first rail portion; a second rail portion (6) configured to move along the link portion between a third position {by way of example as shown in fig. 11} and a fourth position {by way of example as shown in fig. 12} relative to the link portion; wherein when the second rail portion moves between the third position and the fourth position, the link portion is configured to be secured in the first position {such is the case when the link portion is latched and held to the first rail portion and the second rail portion is pulled outward while the link and first rail portions remain fixed}; wherein when the second rail portion is in the third position, the link portion is released from the first position for movement between the first position and the second position {such as when the link portion is released while the second rail portion continues outward movement}; and wherein the link portion and the second rail portion are configured such that fiber optic cables associated with a tray {drawer} do not engage the link portion to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position {such as when cables are housed within the drawer for instance as dependent upon the needs of an end user}. As to Claim 32, the slider further comprising a first locking portion (12) configured to secure the link portion to the first rail portion in the first position {disclosed}. As to Claim 33, the first locking portion is configured to be disengaged by movement of the second rail into the third position when the link portion is in the first position {such as when the second rail is pulled outward with the link portion and first rail portion held fixed}. As to Claim 34, the first locking portion comprises a latch portion (36) on the link portion configured to engage a slot portion {25} on a surface {21} to secure the link portion to the first rail in the first position. As to Claim 35, an abutment portion (such as the other of 46 or 48 for instance) on the second rail portion is configured to force the latch portion at least partially out of a slot portion {25} when the second rail portion is moved into the third position (such as when (42, 44) are depressed and released when (46, 48) move past). As to Claim 36, the latch portion flexes at least partially out of the slot portion (the latch portion is made of nylon and has inherent elastic properties). As to Claim 37, the slider further comprising a second locking portion (42, 44) configured to secure the second rail portion to the link portion in the third position {fig. 11}. As to Claim 38, the second locking portion is configured to be disengaged by movement of the link portion into the first position when the second rail portion is in the third position {such as when the second rail portion is held while the link portion is retracted}, thereby releasing the second rail portion from the link portion for movement towards the fourth position. As to Claim 39, the second locking portion comprises a friction fit between the link portion and the second rail portion when the second rail portion is in the third position {shown}. As to Claim 40, the second locking portion is configured to be disengaged as the second rail portion moves from the third position towards the fourth position {fig. 12}.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
JOH
January 20, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637