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 Objections
1. Claim 27 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim can only refer to multiple claims in the alternative. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
2. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, the phrase: “may is disposed” appears to contain a typographical error. 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.
3. Claims 4-5 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.
On line 2 of claim 4, “adjacent end regions” is confusing, as it is unclear if these are the same or different than the previously recited “adjacent end regions” in claim 1 above. This appears to be a double-recitation of the same elements, and it is suggested that inserting “the” before adjacent would correct this issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1, 3, 6-16 and 23-26 are allowed.
5. Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
6. Claims 2 and 27 but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections noted above.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
None of the available prior art, alone or in combination, discloses the combination of features claimed, especially the feature of: “the modified profile of the upper rail surface at each adjacent end region comprising an elongate ridge section which extends longitudinally of its projecting portion and has an apex which is disposed at a position away from the truncated side edge of the upper rail surface.”
The closest prior art appears to be the Jeong Bang Engineering (JBE) reference cited on the IDS, and the Sun et al reference. The JBL reference shows a rail section comprising a ridge. However, the ridge curves along the longitudinal length of the rail section, and therefor the apex of the ridge is not disposed at a position away from the truncated side edge. This is in contrast to the instant invention where the ridge curves laterally away and upwardly of the truncated side edge, such that apex of the ridge is disposed at a position away from the truncated side edge as claimed. The Sun et al reference does appear to teach a ridge section that curves upwardly and away from a truncated side portion (see 5, figure 1 and figure 6). However, the effective filing date of the Sun reference is after that of the effective filing date of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al is cited as an example of a rail section forming a ridge that curves upwardly and away from a truncated side section of an adjacent overlapping rail section, while Remington et al, Maenpaa et al and Close are all cited as various types of rail joints.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel Joseph Morano whose telephone number is (571)272-6684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday before 3:30 pm Eastern.
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, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
S. JOSEPH MORANO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights