DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 2, and 4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “... both opposing ends of the flat surface portion ...” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Because the claim does not previously set forth the ‘flat surface portion’ as having ‘opposing ends,’ there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... opposing ends of the flat surface portion ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the attachment assisting jig being used for adjusting a distance ...” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “an attachment assisting jig.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘using the attachment assisting jig for adjusting a distance,’ such that the claim is directed towards a method, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘attachment assisting jig,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘attachment assisting jig’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the attachment assisting jig being configured for adjusting a distance ...”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (U.S. Patent Number 9,140,301) in view of Monahan (U.S. Patent Number 6,254,274).
As to claim 1, Williams teaches an attachment assisting jig for a rail cover (abstract), wherein the attachment assisting jig comprises: a jig main body that is configured to be pushed and pulled in a longitudinal direction of the rail cover (figures 1 – 3, element 18 being the ‘jig main body’; column 2, lines 40 – 43); and a pair of pressing rollers, arranged on a bottom surface of the jig main body so that peripheral surfaces of the pair of pressing rollers are configured to be brought into abutment against inner side surfaces of a pair of side wall portions of the rail cover, respectively, and are further configured to rotate in directions opposite to each other (figures 1 – 5, opposing elements 26 being the ‘pair of pressing rollers’; column 2, line 57 – column 3, line 17 and column 3, line 50 – column 4, line 14), the pair of pressing rollers being further configured, along with movement of the jig main body in the longitudinal direction of the rail cover, to press the pair of side wall portions outward in a short-side direction of the rail cover and plastically deform the pair of side wall portions with respect to a flat surface portion of the rail cover. Examiner notes that this can be found because Williams expressly teaches the attachment assisting jig being adjusted so that the pair of pressing rollers provide a preload force onto side wall portions of a carriage (figure 5, elements 26; column 3, lines 1 – 17 and column 3, line 50 – column 4, line 14).
However, while Williams teaches the attachment assisting jig being attached to, and carrying, large loads such as machine tools and mechanisms (column 1, lines 8 – 20 and column 2, lines 9 – 11), Williams does not teach how to attach the attachment assisting jig to the large loads. Monahan teaches an attachment assisting jig for a rail cover (abstract), wherein the assisting jig comprises: a jig main body that is configured to be pushed and pulled in a longitudinal direction of the rail cover (figure 2, element 52 being the ‘jig main body’; column 3, line 63 – column 4, line 6); and a pair of pressing rollers, which are arranged on a bottom surface of the jig main body so that peripheral surfaces of the pair of pressing rollers are configured to be brought into abutment against side surfaces of a pair of side wall portions of the rail cover, respectively, and are further configured to be rotated indirection opposite to each other (figure 2, opposing elements 60 being the ‘pair of pressing rollers’; column 3, line 65 – column 4, line 6). Monahan further teaches that an operating grip is provided on an upper surface of the jig main body (figure 2, element 78 being the ‘operating grip’; column 4, lines 28 – 44). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the jig main body of Williams with the operating grip of Monahan, because Monahan teaches that the operating grip provides means for attaching the attachment assisting jig to a load (column 4, lines 28 – 44), as desired by Williams (column 1, lines 8 – 20 and column 2, lines 9 – 11).
Regarding the limitation defining the structure of the “rail cover” and the “track rail,” Examiner notes that each of these are recited functionally, such that the claimed “attachment assisting jig” is configured for use with the ‘rail cover’ and the ‘track rail.’ As explained above, Williams in view of Monahan makes obvious the structure of the ‘attachment assisting jig’ of claim 1. Therefore, there is a prima facie case of obviousness that the ‘attachment assisting jig’ of Williams in view of Monahan is configured for use with the ‘rail cover’ and ‘track rail’ recited by the claim. MPEP 2112.01.
As to claim 2, Williams further teaches a guide member provided on the bottom surface of the jig main body, the guide member having a side surface configured to be brought into abutment against one of the inner side surfaces of the pair of side wall portions (figures 1 – 4, opposing elements 24 being the ‘guide member’; column 2, line 57 – column 3, line 17).
As to claim 4, Williams further teaches that the guide member comprises a pair of guide rollers arranged on the bottom surface of the jig main body so that peripheral surfaces of the pair of guide rollers are configured to be brought into abutment against the side wall portions, respectively, and are further configured to be rotated in directions opposite to each other (figures 1 – 4, opposing elements 24 being the ‘pair of guide rollers,’ see below; column 2, line 57 – column 3, line 17), and wherein an arrangement distance between the pair of pressing rollers is larger than an arrangement distance between the pair of guide rollers (figure 2, elements 26 and 24, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 5 – 8, that the ‘pair of pressing rollers’ of Williams is not ‘configured to press and plastically deform the pair of side wall portions of the rail cover outward,’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the ‘pair of pressing rollers’ of Williams extends beyond the ‘jig main body’ (figures 1 – 3, elements 26 and 18), which would allow for the ‘pair of pressing rollers’ to press and plastically deform the ‘side wall portions’ of the ‘rail cover’ in the same manner that Williams teaches the ‘pair of pressing rollers’ to press and apply a preload force to shafts of a carriage (figure 5, elements 14 and 16 being the ‘shafts’ and element 12 being the ‘carriage’; column 3, lines 1 – 17 and column 3, line 50 – column 4, line 14).
Applicant further argues, on page 8, that Williams ‘teaches away’ from the ‘pair of pressing rollers plastically deforming the side wall portions of the rail cover.’ Examiner disagrees. Applicant bases this argument by alleging that plastically deforming either the ‘side wall portions of the rail cover’ or the ‘shafts of the carriage’ would prevent the attachment assisting jig from sliding along the carriage. Examiner disagrees. Examiner first notes that Applicant has provided no reasoning for this assertion. Secondly, Examiner notes the minimal plastic deformation of either the ‘side wall portions’ or the ‘shafts’ would still allow for the ‘attachment assisting jig’ to slide along the carriage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greiner (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0276174) teaches an attachment assisting jig comprising: a jig main body; and a pair of pressing rollers arranged on a surface of the jig main body.
Schroeder (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0285513) teaches an attachment assisting jig comprising: a jig main body; and a pair of pressing rollers arranged on a bottom surface of the jig main body and configured to rotate in directions opposite to each other.
Aoki (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0232977) teaches an attachment assisting jig comprising: a jig main body; and a pair of pressing rollers arranged on a bottom surface of the jig main body and configured to rotate in directions opposite to each other.
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-270-5331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights