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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1-15 are currently amended; claims 16-17 were previously presented.
Claims 1-17 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/06/2024 and on 09/22/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection of Fujita in view of Yamamura necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fujita (U.S. Pat. No. 4811925) in view of Yamamura (U.S. Pat. No. 5350148).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a roller-sliding column composite sliding rail carrier system, comprising
an upper sliding rail (3), a lower sliding rail (4) and a holding bracket (19), characterized in that the upper sliding rail and the lower sliding rail are of a lateral asymmetric structure;
an upper rail-first side (3a) of the upper sliding rail is in contact with the lower sliding rail via a combined structure of at least one roller mechanism (20a, 21a) and at least one first holding bracket (11) wherein the at least one roller mechanism comprises a roller (21a). However, Fujita is silent to disclose the wherein the at least one roller mechanism comprises a roller shaft axially provided in the roller. Yamamura teaches a roller shaft (Yamamura; 236) axially provided in the roller (Yamamura; 230B).
Fujita and Yamamura are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for supporting an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roller of Fujita having the roller shaft. The motivation would have been to improve efficiency of the product and to provide appropriate grip during the retention.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita teaches the at least one roller mechanism (21a) is provided at the lower part of the upper rail-first side (3a) and provides motion support; the at least one first holding bracket (11) is provided between an upper rail-first outer side (vertical portion of 3) and a lower rail-first side (vertical portion of 4 near 13) to provide motion support for an upper part of the upper rail-first side.
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches at least one sliding column (column defining 18) is provided on the at least one first holding bracket (11), wherein the sliding column is in contact with the upper sliding rail and the lower sliding rail and provides support.
Regarding claim 6, Fujita teaches at least one second holding bracket (10) provided between an upper rail-second outer side and a lower rail-second side;
at least one pair of second stop ends (5a, 5b) provided on the upper rail-second outer side, wherein the at least one second holding bracket is provided between a pair of second stop ends from the at least one pair of second stop ends.
Regarding claim 7, Fujita teaches at least two sliding columns (14b, 4a, 14a) are provided at an upper part of the at least one second holding bracket and a lower part of the at least one second holding bracket, wherein the at least one second holding bracket is in contact with the upper sliding rail and the lower sliding rail via the sliding columns and provides motion support (see Fig. 1 for configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches the lower part of the at least one second holding bracket (10) is in contact with a lower rail-second support surface (surface of 4 in contact with 4a) of the lower sliding rail via the at least two sliding columns, wherein a lateral width of the lower rail-second support surface is smaller than that of a lower rail-first support surface on the lower sliding rail, which is in contact with the at least one roller mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, Fujita teaches at least a pair of first stop ends (5a, 5b) are provided on the upper rail- first outer side, wherein the at least one first holding bracket (11) is arranged between the first stop ends.
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches the upper rail-first outer side (vertical portion of 3) is in contact with the upper part of the lower rail-first side (vertical portion of 4 near 13) only by it’s the upper part of the upper rail-first outer side, via the at least one first holding bracket (11).
Regarding claim 13, Fujita teaches the at least one first holding bracket (11) is asymmetric with the at least one second holding bracket (10).
Regarding claim 14, Fujita teaches a movement position of the at least one second holding bracket (10) relative to the upper sliding rail (3) is limited by the at least one pair of second stop ends (5b and end of rail), two second stop ends from the at least one pair of second stop ends being located on the upper rail-second outer side and when the upper sliding rail is moved relative to the lower sliding rail.
Regarding claim 15, Fujita teaches the at least one first holding bracket (11) is limited in movement by the first stop ends (5a and end of rail) on the upper rail-first outer side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 16 and 17 as best understood would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights