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)(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, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida (US 20070234832 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses (in annotated fig. 4) linear guide unit (fig. 4) comprising:
a profiled body (12), wherein the profiled body (12) has a base plate (30) with a longitudinal direction,
a transverse direction perpendicular thereto and a vertical direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and transverse direction,
wherein a first leg (1L) and a second leg (2L) project from an upper side (UP) of the base plate (30) in the vertical direction and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein the profiled body (12) has a first inner side (right 38) and a first outer side (FO) and a second inner side (left 38) and a second outer side (SO),
wherein the first inner side (right 38) and the second inner side (left 38) face each other,
wherein a first guiding surface (GS1) is provided on the first inner side (right 38) and a second guiding surface (GS2) is provided on the second inner side (38),
and wherein the base plate (30) has a bottom side (BT) opposite the upper side (UP),
and a movement unit (20, 36a, 36b) comprising a carriage (20) which has a guiding unit (36a, 36b) with a first guiding module (36a) arranged on the carriage (20) and a second guiding module (36b) arranged opposite the first guiding module (36a) at a distance in the transverse direction on the carriage (20),
wherein the movement unit (20, 36a, 36b) is mounted on the profiled body (12) so as to be linearly movable in the longitudinal direction,
in that the first guiding module (36a) abutting movably against the first guiding surface (GS1) and the second guiding module (36b) abutting movably against the second guiding surface (GS2),
wherein a first mounting extension (1MS) and a second mounting extension (2MS) project from the bottom side (BT) and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein a first support surface (1SS) of the first mounting extension (1MS) and a second support surface (2SS) of the second mounting extension (2MS) lie in a common plane and project from the bottom side (BT) along the vertical direction,
wherein a first clamping surface (1CS) opposite the first support surface (1SS) is provided on the first mounting extension (1MS) and a second clamping surface opposite the second support surface (2SS) is provided on the second mounting extension (2MS),
and wherein the first support surface (1SS) completely overlaps the first clamping surface (1CS) and the second support surface (2SS) completely overlaps the second clamping surface (2CS) in the transverse direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
637
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Iida discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the extent of the first support surface (1SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to the extent of the first clamping surface (1CS) and the extent of the second support surface (2SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to the extent of the second clamping surface (2CS).
Regarding claim 6, Iida discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the first mounting extension (1MS) is located in a first outer region (FR) of the base plate (30) and the second mounting extension (2MS) is located in a second outer region (SR) of the base plate (30)
Regarding claim 9, Iida discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein a distance between a first base plate end face (1BP) opposite the first clamping surface (1CS) decreases with increasing distance from the first outer side (FO) of the profiled body (12) and a distance between a second base plate (2BP) end face opposite the second clamping surface (2CS) decreases with increasing distance from the second outer side (SO) of the profiled body (12, there are regions along the inclined surface that decreases with increasing distance from the outer side, especially going past the curve and toward the inside wall).
Regarding claim 11, Iida discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein an outer side (MFO) of the first mounting extension (1MS) is oriented parallel to the first outer side (FO) of the profiled body (12) and an outer side of the second mounting extension (2MS) is oriented parallel to the second outer side (SO) of the profiled body (12), wherein the outer side (MFO) of the first mounting extension (1MS) and the first outer side (FO) of the profiled body (12) lie in a common plane and the outer side (MSO) of the second mounting extension (2MS) and the second outer side (SO) of the profiled body (12) lie in a common plane.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (US 20070234832 A1) alone.
Regarding claim 3, Iida discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1 but does not disclose the ratio of the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction and the ratio of the extent of the second support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction is at most 0.1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction and the ratio of the extent of the second support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction is at most 0.1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the ratio of the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction and the ratio of the extent of the second support surface in the transverse direction to the extent of the base plate in the transverse direction is at most 0.1, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the ratio of the support surfaces to the base plate being 0.1 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed ratios lacks any clear criticality), it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless ratio of the support surfaces to the base plate being 0.1 or not. For example, the ratio can depend on how much load the linear guide unit needs to support and guide.
Alternative rejection #1
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neff (EP 0322509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neff discloses (in annotated fig. 4N) linear guide unit (fig. 4) comprising:
a profiled body (2), wherein the profiled body (2) has a base plate (BP) with a longitudinal direction,
a transverse direction perpendicular thereto and a vertical direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and transverse direction,
wherein a first leg (1L) and a second leg (2L) project from an upper side (UP) of the base plate (BP) in the vertical direction and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein the profiled body (2) has a first inner side (1IS) and a first outer side (FO) and a second inner side (2IS) and a second outer side (SO),
wherein the first inner side (1IS) and the second inner side (2IS) face each other,
wherein a first guiding surface (right 17) is provided on the first inner side (1IS) and a second guiding surface (left 17) is provided on the second inner side (38),
and wherein the base plate (BP) has a bottom side (BT) opposite the upper side (UP),
and a movement unit (13, right 15, left 15) comprising a carriage (13) which has a guiding unit (right 15, left 15) with a first guiding module (right 15) arranged on the carriage (13) and a second guiding module (left 15) arranged opposite the first guiding module (right 18) at a distance in the transverse direction on the carriage (13),
wherein the movement unit (13, right 15, left 15) is mounted on the profiled body (2) so as to be linearly movable in the longitudinal direction,
in that the first guiding module (right 15) abutting movably against the first guiding surface (right 17) and the second guiding module (left 15) abutting movably against the second guiding surface (left 17),
wherein a first mounting extension (1MS) and a second mounting extension (2MS) project from the bottom side (BT) and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein a first support surface (1SS) of the first mounting extension (1MS) and a second support surface (2SS) of the second mounting extension (2MS) lie in a common plane and project from the bottom side (BT) along the vertical direction,
wherein a first clamping surface (1CS) opposite the first support surface (1SS) is provided on the first mounting extension (1MS) and a second clamping surface opposite the second support surface (2SS) is provided on the second mounting extension (2MS),
and wherein the first support surface (1SS) completely overlaps the first clamping surface (1CS) and the second support surface (2SS) completely overlaps the second clamping surface (2CS) in the transverse direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
823
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Neff discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the first mounting extension (1MS) is located in a first outer region (FR) of the base plate (30) and the second mounting extension (2MS) is located in a second outer region (SR) of the base plate (BP).
Regarding claim 7, Neff discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein an upper ridge (UR) and a lower ridge (LR) are formed by a recess (RE) formed between the upper side (UP) and the bottom side (BT) and which extends in longitudinal direction through the entire base plate (BP).
Regarding claim 8, Neff discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein a ratio of a first distance of a central plane of the upper ridge (UP) to the first support surface (1SS) and/or to the second support surface (2SS) to a second distance of the central plane of the upper ridge (UP) to a first upper side of the first leg (1L) and/or to a second upper side of the second leg (2L) corresponds to the ratio of the second distance to the sum of the first and second distance (correspond does not define any specific correspondence or anything specific).
Regarding claim 10, Neff discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein a first guiding step (1GS, which is shown better in the other recess label 6 where (the dovetail style groove as illustrated, from the base of the groove the bottom side would project upward along the vertical), which does a small step) adjacent to the first clamping surface (1CS) is provided on the first mounting extension (1MS) and a second guiding step (2GS) adjacent to the second clamping surface (2CS) is provided on the second mounting extension (2MS), the first guiding step (1GS) and the second guiding step (2GS) projecting in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 12, Neff discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the first guiding surface (right 17) is formed on a first guide rail (right 18) and the second guiding surface (left 17) is formed on a second guide rail (left 18), the first guide rail (right 18) being force-locked and/or material-locked connected to the first inner side (1IS) and the second guide rail (left 18) being force-locked and/or material-locked connected to the second inner side (2IS, there is an interference fit as there are no space between the two elements).
Alternative rejection #2
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosch (DE 8809689 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bosch discloses (in annotated fig. 1) linear guide unit (fig. 1) comprising:
a profiled body (4), wherein the profiled body (4) has a base plate (BP) with a longitudinal direction,
a transverse direction perpendicular thereto and a vertical direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and transverse direction,
wherein a first leg (top part of 12) and a second leg (top part of 11) project from an upper side (UP) of the base plate (BP) in the vertical direction and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein the profiled body (4) has a first inner side (14) and a first outer side (FO) and a second inner side (13) and a second outer side (SO),
wherein the first inner side (14) and the second inner side face (13) each other,
wherein a first guiding surface (GS1) is provided on the first inner side (14) and a second guiding surface (GS2) is provided on the second inner side (13),
and wherein the base plate (BP) has a bottom side (BT) opposite the upper side (UP),
and a movement unit (17, right 15, left 15) comprising a carriage (17) which has a guiding unit (right 15, left 15) with a first guiding module (right 15) arranged on the carriage (17) and a second guiding module (left 15) arranged opposite the first guiding module (right 15) at a distance in the transverse direction on the carriage (17),
wherein the movement unit (17, right 15, left 15) is mounted on the profiled body (12) so as to be linearly movable in the longitudinal direction,
in that the first guiding module (right 15) abutting movably against the first guiding surface (GS1) and the second guiding module (left 15) abutting movably against the second guiding surface (GS2),
wherein a first mounting extension (12) and a second mounting extension (11) project from the bottom side (BT) and are spaced apart from one another in the transverse direction,
wherein a first support surface (1SS) of the first mounting extension (12) and a second support surface (2SS) of the second mounting extension (11) lie in a common plane and project from the bottom side (BT) along the vertical direction,
wherein a first clamping surface (1CS) opposite the first support surface (1SS) is provided on the first mounting extension (12) and a second clamping surface (2CS) opposite the second support surface (2SS) is provided on the second mounting extension (11),
and wherein the first support surface (1SS) completely overlaps the first clamping surface (1CS) and the second support surface (2SS) completely overlaps the second clamping surface (2CS) in the transverse direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
433
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bosch discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the extent of the first support surface (1SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the first clamping surface (1CS) and/or the second support surface (2SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the second clamping surface (2CS).
Regarding claim 4, Bosch discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the extent of the first support surface (1SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to the extent of the first clamping surface (1CS) and the extent of the second support surface (2SS) in the transverse direction corresponds to the extent of the second clamping surface (2CS).
Regarding claim 5, Bosch discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the first clamping surface (1CS) is oriented parallel to the first support surface (1SS) and the second clamping surface (2CS) is oriented parallel to the second support surface (1SS).
Regarding claim 6, Bosch discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1, wherein the first mounting extension (12) is located in a first outer region (FR) of the base plate (BP) and the second mounting extension (11) is located in a second outer region (SR) of the base plate (BP).
Assuming it is later concluded that Bosch does not disclose the first and second support surfaces corresponding to 0.5 to 1.25 times their respective clamping surfaces:
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (DE 8809689 A1) alone.
Regarding claim 2, Bosch discloses the linear guide unit according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the first clamping surface and/or the second support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the second clamping surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the first clamping surface and/or the second support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the second clamping surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It also would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the extent of the first support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the first clamping surface and/or the second support surface in the transverse direction corresponds to 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent in the transverse direction of the second clamping surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the support surfaces being 0.5 to 1.25 times the extent of the clamping surfaces solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (the claimed ratios lacks any clear criticality), it appears that the invention would perform equally well regardless if the first and second support surfaces corresponding to 0.5 to 1.25 times their respective clamping surfaces or not. For example, the ratio can depend on how much load the linear guide unit needs to support and guide and how compact the linear guide unit needs to be.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the drawing objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the specification objections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, applicant amendments have overcome the previously raised issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant is arguing that “1CS” and “2CS” in Iida cannot be considered clamping surfaces. However, this is part of a screw down arrangement so it clamps the main rail in place by interacting with a complimentary surface so it is a clamp surface. No specific structure in the claim would preclude the surface from being inclined. Under BRI, “clamping surface” is broad and the claim never says explicitly says “clamp” or “clamp arrangement”, which would have a different meaning than “clamping surface.”
On page 10, Applicant is arguing that Neff fails to disclose the limitation “the first support surface completely overlaps the first clamping surface and the second support surface completely overlaps the second clamping surface in the transverse direction.” In the instant application, fig. 5 shown below, “the first support surface (56) completely overlaps the first clamping surface (60) and the second support surface (57) completely overlaps the second clamping surface (61) in the transverse direction (78).” And then in Neff, annotated fig. 4N shown below: “the first support surface (1SS) completely overlaps the first clamping surface (1CS) and the second support surface (2SS) completely overlaps the second clamping surface (2CS) in the transverse direction).” Neff shows similar surfaces in the similar location so it meets the limitations of the claim. If Applicant wishes for the claim limitation to mean something different, then those feature need to be explicitly set forth in the claim because under BRI, the current interpretation seems to be the same.
PNG
media_image4.png
592
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
483
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
On pages 11-12, Applicant is arguing that the Bosch reference fails to disclose “the body is mounted on the profiled body so as to be linearly movable in the longitudinal direction, in that the first guiding module abutting movably against the first guiding surface and the second guiding module abutting movably against the second guiding surface”, nor is there any indication of a defined clamping arrangement required to secure a linear guide unit to a support, and specifically, in which, “the first support surface completely overlaps the first clamping surface and the second support surface completely overlaps the second clamping surface in the transverse direction”, as recited in Claim 1. However, considering BRI, the claim is only stating that there is a movement unit, which is 17, that is mounted on the profiled body, which is 4, that is linearly movable in the longitudinal direction between the guiding modules (left and right 15), which para. [0010] of Bosch discloses that. Claim 1 also does not state any defined clamping arrangements and only discloses clamping surfaces. Which as stated before, under BRI, “clamping surface” is broad and the claim never says explicitly says “clamp” or “clamp arrangement”, which would have a different meaning than “clamping surface.”
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 AIMEE T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/AIMEE TRAN NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3617 /JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights