DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “identical” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what factors make the codes identical. Is it a physical factor? If so, what physical factors determine for the codes to be identical? Is it the information of the codes? If so, how close does the codes need to be to be considered identical? The scope of the term could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gamboa et al. [US 20110113613].
As to claim 1. Gamboa discloses A rail system having an anchor or mounting rail, [fig. 1, 0033] apparatus 16, [fig. 15, 0047, 0052] which can be a structure 186, and at least one accessory part associated with the anchor or mounting rail, [fig. 1, 0033] fastener 18, wherein both the anchor rail or mounting rail, [0035] collar 21 comprising a code 30, [0043] which can be provided attached to the apparatus 16, as well as the at least one accessory part, [0034] fastener 18 with code 30, have an optoelectronically readable identification code, [0034] code 30 is a laser marking.
As to claim 4. Gamboa discloses The rail system according to claim 1, wherein the rail system has a component fastener which can be brought into engagement behind the anchor or mounting rail to fasten an attachment part to the anchor or mounting rail as an accessory part, [0038] a nut to be used with a bolt.
As to claim 5. Gamboa discloses The rail system according to claim 1, wherein the anchor or mounting rail has multiple identification codes, and/or that the identification code is arranged at a location of the anchor or mounting rail on which the identification code is accessible for optical reading when the anchor or mounting rail is fastened as provided, [0035] collar 21 comprising a code 30, [0043] which can be provided attached at location 17 of the apparatus 16.
As to claim 6. Gamboa discloses The rail system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one accessory part has multiple identification codes, and/or that the identification code is arranged at a location of the at least one accessory part at which the identification code is accessible for optoelectronic reading when the at least one accessory part is arranged as provided on the anchor or mounting rail, [fig. 2A, 0034] the code provided on an end surface 26 of the fastener, [0039] and can be scanned with a laser reader 50.
As to claim 8. Gamboa discloses The rail system according to claim 1, wherein the rail system has an optoelectronic code reader, [fig. 1, 0037] laser reader 55.
As to claim 10. Gamboa discloses The rail system according to claim 1, wherein a database in which data relating to the anchor or mounting rail and associated accessory parts are stored is associated with the rail system, [fig. 1, 0040-0042] database 57.
As to claim 11. Gamboa discloses A method for checking a rail system according to claim 1, wherein the identification code of the anchor rail or mounting rail and the at least one accessory part is read with the optoelectronic code reader, [0037], and an association of the at least one accessory part with the anchor or mounting rail is checked, [0040] compatibility is determined.
As to claim 12. Gamboa discloses The method according to claim 11, wherein the association of the at least one accessory part is checked when the anchor or mounting rail is fastened as provided, and the at least one accessory part is arranged on the anchor or mounting rail, [0040].
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa in view of Long et al. [US 20080178713].
As to claim 3. Gamboa fails to disclose The rail system according to claim 1, wherein the anchor or mounting rail and the at least one accessory part have different identification codes.
Long teaches a fastener tightening system comprising components 18, 20 and a fastener 12, [fig. 1]; wherein the components and the fasteners comprise a data storage device 26, and 48, respectively, that can be implemented as a barcode, [fig. 1, 0027]; wherein the information on the device 26 includes identification of the components, identification of the hole, [0020]; wherein information on the device 48 includes identification of the fastener, [0026], that is unique, [0045]; which makes the two information different.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gamboa with that of Long so that the system can uniquely identify the fasteners to track manufacturing errors.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa in view of Thomson et al. [US 20070180937].
As to claim 7. Gamboa fails to disclose The rail system according to claim 4, wherein the component fastener has a rotational position marking with which a rotational position of the component fastener can be recognized with respect to the anchor or mounting rail.
Thomson teaches a railway safety apparatus comprising a fastener, [0007], with a mark that indicates the rotational position of the fastener with respect to the rail, [0008].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gamboa with that of Thomson so that the mark can be used to inspect the correct installation of the fastener.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa in view of Cantrell et al. [US 20190107231].
As to claim 9. Gamboa fails to disclose The rail system according to claim 8, wherein the rail system has a smartphone or a tablet computer as the optoelectronic code reader.
Cantrell teaches a nut 40 comprising a marking in the form of a barcode 90’, [fig. 8A, 0042]; wherein the system uses a smartphone 96 to read the code, [0050].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gamboa with that of Cantrell so that the system can use an already available device of the user to scan the code avoiding additional cost of buying a separate reader.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamboa in view of Neikes [US 20190226200].
As to claim 13. Gamboa fails to disclose the rail system according to claim 1, wherein the anchor or mounting rail is a C-profile rail.
Neikes teaches a profiled rail 2 for fastening to formwork wherein the rail can be attached to a structure 8, [fig. 8, 0042]; wherein the rail is a C-profile rail.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gamboa with that of Neikes so that the apparatus 16 of Gamboa described to be attached to a structure can be selected from a widely available types of rails for the specific application as nothing but a design choice to easily be identified by one of ordinary skilled in the art without affecting the functionality of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: as for claim 2, the amendment clarifying that the identical codes are optoelectrically readable overcomes the 112 rejection.
Response 1: The rejection is based on the word “identical” being a relative term that does not provide any definite scope on what the term covers. Does the codes need to be the same or similar with some differences, if so, how different do the codes need to be before being outside the scope of “identical”. The claim still stands rejected as being indefinite.
Argument 2: The Office Action identifies the two components 12 and 14 as the claimed anchor or mounting rail. The two components 12 and 14 are more comparable to accessory parts/components of a product that are to be joined/fixed.
Response 2: In response to applicant's argument that the prior art uses the system for attaching two components that are not in a structure, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The Office Action is identifying the apparatus 16, with the components 12 and 14, that is described in [fig. 15, 0047, 0052] to be a structure 186, as the claimed anchor rail, as detailed in the Office Action above; and the component 14 is used to read on the mounting rail.
Argument 3: Gamboa does not disclose an identification code on any such comparable mounting rail, as required in claim 1.
Response 3: Claim 1 does not require an identification code on the mounting rail. Claim 1 only requires an identification code on the anchor rail or mounting rail. Gamboa teaches in [0043] that an identification code on the anchor rail 16, that comes with the collar 21 attached to it, comprises the code 30, [0035] that a laser reading marking.
Argument 4: The prior arts do not teach the newly added limitations.
Response 4: The Office Action is amended to address the newly added limitations as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688