DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 21-24 & 41-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al., [US 7,308,184] in view of Dopp et al., [US 6,244,678]. For examination purposes, the position is taken that fiber optic cables, a tray and a case are positively defined features in combination with the slider. Barnes teaches of a slider (fig. 1) configured to avoid damage to fiber optic cables (defined as fiber optic cables) when a tray (30) is moved between a retracted position and an extended position (col. 4), comprising: a first rail portion (42) configured to be attached to a sidewall (24) of a case (18); a link portion (44) 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 (40) configured to be attached to an edge of the tray (col. 5) and configured to slide with the tray along the link portion between a third position {second rail portion and link portion extending out together} and a fourth position {second rail portion extending out past the link portion} relative to the link portion; and locking portions (such as (78) (56) (58) (64) (94) (172) for example) used to position the first, second and link portions relative to each in order to hold the tray in various states of extension relative to the case; but does not describe the locking portions and positioning of the tray in a manner as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Dopp is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a slide arrangement (fig. 1) 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}. 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 Barnes so as to substitute for a slide arrangement as taught by Dopp, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an upgraded locking and positioning means where the first and second rail portions could be securely retained in a latched coupling with respect to the link portion and a varied range of tray extension positioning relative to the case can be more effectively obtained via Dopp’s locking portions. As modified, the link portion and the second rail portion are configured such that the fiber optic cables associated with the tray do not engage the link portion (via (50) for instance) to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position. Regarding Claim 22, as modified, the link portion is positioned between the first rail portion and the second rail portion (note fig. 5 of Barnes & fig. 1 of Dopp). Regarding Claim 23, as modified, 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 of Dopp for instance). Regarding Claim 24, as modified, 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 41, again Barnes teaches of a device (fig. 2) for avoiding damage to fiber optic cables (defined as fiber optic cables) when a tray (18) is moved between a retracted position and an extended position during operation (col. 4). For examination purposes, the position is taken that fiber optic cables, a tray and a sidewall are positively defined features in combination with the device. An enhanced sliding assembly (fig. 5) comprising: a first rail portion (42) configured to be attached to a sidewall (24); a link portion (44) 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 (40) configured to move along the link portion between a third position {second rail portion and link portion extending out together} and a fourth position {second rail portion extending out past the link portion} relative to the link portion; and locking portions (such as (78) (56) (58) (64) (94) (172) for example) used to position the first, second and link portions relative to each in order to hold the tray in various states of extension relative to the sidewall; but does not describe the locking portions and positioning of the tray in a manner as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Dopp is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of an enhanced sliding assembly 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, so 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}. 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 Barnes so as to substitute for a slide arrangement as taught by Dopp, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an upgraded locking and positioning means where the first and second rail portions could be securely retained in a latched coupling with respect to the link portion and a varied range of tray extension positioning relative to the case can be more effectively obtained via Dopp’s locking portions. As modified, the sliding assembly is structurally arranged to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position during operation by structurally arranging the link portion and the second rail portion such that fiber optic cables associated with the tray do not engage the link portion (via (50) for instance) when the tray is moved between the retracted and the extended position. Regarding Claim 42, as modified, the second locking portion is structurally arranged to be disengaged {such as in fig. 12 of Dopp 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}. Regarding Claim 43, as modified, the first locking portion comprises a latch portion ((36) of Dopp) on the link portion structurally arranged to engage a slot portion ((25) on the sidewall) to secure the link portion in the first position. Regarding Claim 44, as modified, 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 of Dopp for instance). Regarding Claim 45, as modified, the second locking portion is structurally arranged to be disengaged as the second rail portion moves from the third position towards the fourth position (clearly shown). Regarding Claim 46, as modified, an abutment portion (such as the other of 46 or 48 of Dopp for instance) on the second rail portion is structurally arranged to force the latch portion out of a slot portion ((5) of Dopp) 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 47, again, Barnes teaches of a device (fig. 2) for avoiding damage to fiber optic cables (defined as fiber optic cables) when a tray (18) is moved between a retracted position and an extended position during operation (col. 4). For examination purposes, the position is taken that fiber optic cables, a tray and a surface are positively defined features in combination with the device. An enhanced sliding assembly (fig. 5) comprising: a first rail portion (42) configured to be attached to a surface (24); a link portion (44) 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 (40) configured to move along the link portion between a third position {second rail portion and link portion extending out together} and a fourth position {second rail portion extending out past the link portion} relative to the link portion; and locking portions (such as (78) (56) (58) (64) (94) (172) for example) used to position the first, second and link portions relative to each in order to hold the tray in various states of extension relative to the sidewall; but does not describe the positioning of the tray in a manner as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Dopp is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of an enhanced sliding assembly 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, so 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}. 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 Barnes so as to substitute for a slide arrangement as taught by Dopp, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an upgraded locking and positioning means where the first and second rail portions could be securely retained in a latched coupling with respect to the link portion and a varied range of tray extension positioning relative to the case can be more effectively obtained via Dopp’s locking portions. As modified, the sliding assembly is structurally arranged to avoid damage to the fiber optic cables when the tray is moved between a retracted position and an extended position during operation by structurally arranging the link portion and the second rail portion such that fiber optic cables associated with the tray do not engage the link portion (via (50) for instance) when the tray is moved between the retracted and the extended position. Regarding Claim 48, as modified, the device further comprising a first locking portion ((12) of Dopp) structurally arranged to secure the link portion to the first rail portion in the first position (disclosed). Regarding Claim 49, as modified, the first locking portion is structurally arranged 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). Regarding Claim 50, as modified, the first locking portion comprises a latch portion ((36)) of Dopp) on the link portion structurally arranged to engage a slot portion ((25) of Dopp) on the surface (the first locking portion is attached to the first rail portion which would be attached to the surface) to secure the link portion to the first rail in the first position. Regarding Claim 51, as modified, an abutment portion (such as the other of 46 or 48 for instance) on the second rail portion is structurally arranged to force the latch portion at least partially out of the slot portion 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). Regarding Claim 52, as modified, the latch portion flexes at least partially out of the slot portion (the latch portion is made of nylon and has inherent elastic properties). Regarding Claim 53, as modified, the slider further comprising a second locking portion ((42, 44) of Dopp) structurally arranged to secure the second rail portion to the link portion in the third position (fig. 11). Regarding Claim 54, as modified, the second locking portion is structurally arranged 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. Regarding Claim 55, as modified, 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). Regarding Claim 56, as modified, the second locking portion is structurally arranged to be disengaged as the second rail portion moves from the third position towards the fourth position (fig. 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The position being taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
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.
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
July 28, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights