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.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2 “the lower part” should be amended to –a lower part–.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation of claim 1 wherein “…the upper sliding rail and the lower sliding rail reduce their motion friction coefficients under the premise of guaranteeing lateral stiffness…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what a baseline friction coefficient is from which the reduction is measured. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know at which friction coefficient the infringement would occur. Furthermore, the phrase “under the premise of guaranteeing lateral stiffness” is subjective and indefinite because the term “guaranteeing” is absolute and lacks objective criteria. The claim does not define what degree of lateral stiffness is required, nor does it specify relative to which component or baseline the lateral stiffness is measured.
Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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 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. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujita (U.S. Pat. No. 4811925).
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 (21a) and at least one first holding bracket (11), so that the upper sliding rail and the lower sliding rail reduce their motion friction coefficients under the premise of guaranteeing lateral stiffness.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita teaches the roller mechanism (21a) is provided at the lower part of the upper rail-first side (3a) and provides motion support; the 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 the 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 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 second holding bracket is provided between the second stop ends.
Regarding claim 7, Fujita teaches at least two sliding columns (14b, 4a, 14a) are provided at the upper part and lower part of the second holding bracket, wherein the 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 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 sliding columns, wherein the 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 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 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 its upper part via the first holding bracket (11).
Regarding claim 13, Fujita teaches the first holding bracket (11) is asymmetric with the second holding bracket (10).
Regarding claim 14, Fujita teaches a movement position of the second holding bracket (10) relative to the upper sliding rail (3) is limited by the second stop end (5b) provided with its two ends located on the upper rail-second outer side, when the upper sliding rail is moved relative to the lower sliding rail.
Regarding claim 15, Fujita teaches the first holding bracket (11) is limited in movement by the first stop ends (5a) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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