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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (fig. 1) in the reply filed on 12/9/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “in the absence of truly independent or distinct inventive concepts, and given the absence of a serious search and/or examination burden upon the Examiner, Applicant respectfully submits that all of the claims 1-19 in the instant application should be examined together.
This is not found persuasive because the requirement is that “should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.”
Applicant states that “[g]roups 1-4 constitute various improvements to different but integrated portions of the assembly.” The examiner states that the various improvement are the reason for the restriction between the groups. The various improvements are structural differences that create the need for additional search and/or consideration. Further, applicant has not clearly stated that the improvements “are obvious variants” and/or “not patentable distinct.”
Applicant instead vaguely suggest that embodiments are “various improvements” to different but integrated portions of the assembly. The examiner disagrees and submits that the “various improvements” are actually structural differences that create the need for additional search and/or consideration.
Even if the “various improvements” contribute to the primary function of the generic supporting assemblies, as applicant suggests, there is still a need for additional search and/or consideration because of the structural differences of the improvements.
Applicant submits that claims 1-4, 9, 12-14 and 16-17 read on the elected group and are examined below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the term “adapted”. Noting that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform (or adapted for performing) a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Appropriate 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.
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 3-4 and 16-17 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.
Claims 3 and 16 recite, “ the main body portion being connected between the first predetermined end portion and the second predetermined end portion along the longitudinal direction” which as written is indefinite in that it is unclear how or if the main body is connected between the ends because the supporting bracket appears as one piece. Unless applicant intends to claim that the main body is connected to another structure, which as written, is not made clear.
Noting that “connection” indicates a state of being connected, joined or linked. That being said, it is unclear how the main body is connected between the ends (when the bracket shows as a unitary piece) and if another structure is involved in the connection (which is not indicated). Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,675,175 to Chen et al. in view of US 2017/0340111 to Chen et al.
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘175 discloses a supporting assembly adapted for a rack, the supporting assembly comprising: a supporting bracket 26 configured to be mounted on the rack, the supporting bracket 26 comprising a first predetermined end portion and a second predetermined end portion opposite to the first predetermined end portion along a longitudinal direction (fig. 2); a slide rail 30 configured to be detachably mounted on the supporting bracket 26, the slide rail 30 comprising a first end portion, a second end portion and a middle portion (fig. 2), the second end portion being opposite to the first end portion along the longitudinal direction, the middle portion being located between the first end portion and the second end portion along the longitudinal direction (fig. 2); a first movable rail 34 movably mounted on the first slide rail 30; wherein the first predetermined end portion of the supporting bracket 26 protrudes from the first end portion of the slide rail 30 along the longitudinal direction (fig. 1 – see left side of the assembly).
Further, the examiner submits that to have a plurality of slide rails mounted on a bracket (sized to support such a configuration) would be a mere duplication of the rail assembly on a sized bracket because duplication of a known component to perform the same function is a recognized design feature that would predictably increase structural support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to attach two identical slide rails to a sized bracket in order to increase structural support, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
So that, Chen ‘175, as modified by duplication of parts, would comprising a plurality of slide rails including a first slide rail 30 and a second slide rail 30, the first slide rail 30 and the second slide rail 30 having substantially identical structures, as so modified in duplicate.
In addition, Chen ‘111 teaches a first supporting rail 16 movably mounted on the first movable rail 14 movably mounted on the second slide rail 12; wherein the first supporting rail 16 is configured to support a carried object. Chen ‘111 teaches a slide rail is usually used to support an apparatus, such as a drawer or a server chassis (para 0002) and that the third rail 16 is also called the slide rail (para 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual telescoping rails taught in Chen ‘175 with the three rail system as taught in Chen ‘111 in order to achieve increased extension travel. Noting that multi-member telescoping systems are known to provide predictable extension and support benefits.
Regarding claim 2, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses wherein the second predetermined end portion of the supporting bracket 26 is located between the middle portion and the second end portion of each of the plurality of slide rails (plurality as modified) along the longitudinal direction (fig. 1 – see right side of assembly).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,675,175 to Chen et al. in view of US 2017/0340111 to Chen et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of US 2022/0087421 to Chen et al.
Regarding claim 3, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses the support bracket 26. The examiner mentioned above that a sized bracket would support a plurality of slide rails, as modified above. Noting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rack mounting brackets can vary in size and configuration depending on the rack structure.
For example, Chen ‘421, teaches a bracket 26, that comprises a main body portion connected between the first predetermined end portion and the second predetermined end portion of the supporting bracket 26 along the longitudinal direction (fig. 2 -para 0032-035), and a first mounting feature 34 is arranged on the main body portion and configured to be mounted on a first corresponding feature 32a on the rack (fig. 5 – see right side of bracket body 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bracket taught in Chen ‘175 with the bracket taught in Chen ’421 because both brackets perform the same function of supporting a slide rail assembly relative to a rack structure and Chen ‘421 teaches attaching the bracket body to rack posts 32ab, which would improve load support and mounting stability compared to end-mounted attachment points, for a particular rack structure.
Regarding claim 4, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, where Chen ‘421 discloses wherein a second mounting feature 34 is arranged on the main body portion 26 and configured to be mounted on a second corresponding feature 32b on the rack (figs 2 & 5-6 – see right side).
Regarding claim 9, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, wherein a plurality of mounting structures (openings on bracket 26 between mounts 34 on the left and right of the bracket 26) are arranged on the main body portion of the supporting bracket 26 and located between the first mounting feature 34 (left) and the second mounting feature 34 (right) along the longitudinal direction, and the plurality of slide rails (as modified) are configured to be mounted on the plurality of mounting structures. Noting that the modified sized bracket is configured to support the duplicate rails that are modified in Chen ‘175, because rack mounted brackets are commonly used to support one or more slide rail assemblies (as modified).
Regarding claim 12, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, wherein a predetermined structure 52/46 is arranged on one of the supporting bracket 26 (as modified by sized bracket 26 of Chen ‘421) and each of the plurality of slide rails 30 (modified in duplicate) and configured to abut against another one of the supporting bracket and each of the plurality of slide rails (note – 52 extends therethrough in cooperating recess 46 - fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, wherein the predetermined structure 52/46 (fig. 2) is arranged on each of the plurality of slide rails (modified in duplicate) and configured to abut against the main body portion of the supporting bracket 26 (now modified by bracket 26 of Chen ‘421).
Regarding claim 14, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, wherein each of the plurality of slide rails 30 (modified in duplicate) comprises a first lateral side and a second lateral side opposite to the first lateral side along a transverse direction (fig. 2), the first lateral side is located adjacent to the supporting bracket 26 (now modified by bracket 26 of Chen ‘421), the predetermined structure 52/46 comprises a recessed portion 46 and a protruding portion 52, the recessed portion 46 and the protruding portion 52 are located on the second lateral side and the first lateral side of each of the plurality of slide rails 30 (modified in duplicate – Fig. 2), respectively, and the protruding portion 52 is configured to abut against the main body portion of the supporting bracket 26 (now modified by supporting bracket 26 Chen ‘421).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,675,175 to Chen et al.
Regarding claim 16, Chen ‘175 discloses a supporting assembly comprising: a supporting bracket 26 comprising a first predetermined end portion, a second predetermined end portion and a main body portion (fig. 2), the second predetermined end portion being opposite to the first predetermined end portion along a longitudinal direction, the main body portion being connected between the first predetermined end portion and the second predetermined end portion along the longitudinal direction (fig. 3 – as best understood and in light of applicant’s one piece bracket as shown); and a slide rail 30 configured to be detachably mounted on the supporting bracket 26; the slide rail 30 comprising a first end portion, a second end portion and a middle portion, the second end portion being opposite to the first end portion along the longitudinal direction (fig. 2), and the middle portion being located between the first end portion and the second end portion along the longitudinal direction (fig. 2); the slide rail 30 further comprises a first lateral side and a second lateral side along a transverse direction, the first lateral side is located adjacent to the supporting bracket 26 (fig 2), and a channel 42 is formed on the second lateral side (between edges 38 – fig. 2) and for allowing a movable rail 34 to be mounted thereon (fig. 2); wherein a predetermined structure 52/46 is arranged on one of the supporting bracket 26 and the slide rail 30, and the predetermined structure comprises a protruding portion 52 configured to abut against another one of the supporting bracket and the slide rail 30.
Further, the examiner submits that to have a plurality of slide rails mounted on a bracket (sized to support such a configuration) would be a mere duplication of the rail assembly on a sized bracket because duplication of a known component to perform the same function is a recognized design feature that would predictably increase structural support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to attach two identical slide rails to a sized bracket in order to increase structural support, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
So that, Chen ‘175, as modified by duplication of parts, would comprising a first slide rail 30 and (duplicate and identical ) a second slide rail 30, the first slide rail 30 and the second slide rail 30 having substantially identical structures, as so modified.
Regarding claim 17, Chen ‘175, as modified, discloses, wherein the predetermined structure 52/46 is arranged on each of the (modified) plurality of slide rails 30, the protruding portion 52 of the predetermined structure 52/46 is located on the first lateral side of each of the plurality of slide rails 30 (fig. 2), and the predetermined structure 52/46 further comprises a recessed portion 46 located in the channel 42.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and would be used in subsequent office action rejections ,if applicable. The list of supports is as follows: US-6807062-B2 OR US-8925739-B2 OR US-9723746-B2 OR US-9681573-B2 OR US-7604307-B2 OR US-4469384-A OR US-9867308-B2 OR US-11213123-B2 OR US-9474182-B1 OR US-9629276-B2 OR US-20240324135-A1 OR US-20150201754-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632