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 .
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frank (U.S. Patent No. 3,513,757).
Regarding claim 1: Frank discloses a slide rail base, comprising two first slide rails parallel to each other (Figs. 3-5; via slide bars 123 and/or bars 124) and two second slide rails parallel to each other (via 134 and/or 135), wherein the two first slide rails and the two second slide rails are respectively located in an upper surface and a lower surface and intersect with each other, see for example (Fig. 3; via 123/124 are intersecting with 134/135); each intersection point of the first slide rail and the second slide rail is provided with a slider (Fig. 3; via sliders or plates 125 and/or 126 also Figs. 4-6; via panels 151/156), each slider on the intersection point is respectively slidably connected with its corresponding first slide rail and second slide rail, see for example (the mechanical connection and links as shown by Figs. 3-6), and the slider is capable of selectively fixing its position on the first slide rail and the second slide rail, see for example (Figs. 1-6; via the shown mechanical links and bots to hold and fix elements in places, such as 42, 47, 56, 127, and 138 and/or “a plurality of stabilizer bars, each of which is arcuately movable about a fixed axis”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of the claimed slider rail base as amended and supported by the remarks filed on 11/07/2025. In particular, the prior art of record fails to disclose among other features the use of first or second bolt to connect a bottom plate of the slider to the second slide rail or the bottom plate to the first slide rail, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via bolts 16 connecting plates 3 and 4 to rails 1 and 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Frank ‘757 does not suggest the claimed “each slider on the intersection point is respectively slidably connected with its corresponding first slide rail and second slide rail, and the slider is capable of selectively fixing its position on the first slide rail and the second slide rail”. Applicant highlights that the claimed invention is referring to each slider on the intersection point is respectively slidably connected with its corresponding first slide rail and second slide rail. Applicant further explained that each claimed slider is slidably connected with both the first slide rail and the second slide rail, which is not the case in the applied art ‘757.
The Office reminds applicant that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case and as applicant argues the differences appears to be giving too much weight to the invention itself not the claimed language. The Office believes that the argued upon issue of having the slider to be “capable of selectively” to be fixed in the first and second slide rails are broad limitations and not positively cited, therefore not given much patentable weight.
Further, it is noted that 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 believes that applicant is arguing of a matter not fully nor positively cited by the claimed language of claim 1. Being that said, amended claim 2 indicating more positive structural limitations has been allowed.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731