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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/902915. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the copending and instant applications teach rails, brackets, predetermined features, & ventilation holes. Thus, the invention of the claims in the copending application is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-19. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-19 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the copending application, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of the copending application. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/980633. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the copending and instant applications teach rails, brackets, & predetermined features. Thus, the invention of the claims in the copending application is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the copending application, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of the copending application. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/967249. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the copending and instant applications teach rails, brackets, & predetermined features. Thus, the invention of the claims in the copending application is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-3, 9, & 14-15 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the copending application, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of the copending application. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (20140327352).
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘352 teaches a supporting device comprising: a first rail (12); a second rail (18) displaceable relative to the first rail along a longitudinal direction; a third rail (10) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail; a first predetermined feature (14) arranged on one of the first rail and the third rail; and a second predetermined feature (16) arranged on another one of the first rail and the third rail; wherein when the second rail and the third rail displace relative to the first rail along a predetermined direction, the first predetermined feature and the second predetermined feature abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of the third rail relative to the first rail along the predetermined direction (par. 27).
Regarding claim 2, Chen ‘352 teaches a supporting device wherein when a second rail (18) and a third rail (10) displace relative to a first rail (12) along another predetermined direction opposite to the predetermined direction, the first predetermined feature and the second predetermined feature abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of the third rail relative to the first rail along the another predetermined direction (par. 27).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003) in view of Chen (20140327352).
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘003 teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a supporting device comprising: a first rail (40); a second rail (36) displaceable relative to the first rail along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 8 & par. 38); a third rail (34) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail (par. 38); but fail(s) to teach first & second predetermined features. However, Chen ‘352 teaches deceleration means (14, 16) comprising a first predetermined feature (14) arranged on one of a first rail (12) and a third rail (10); and a second predetermined feature (16) arranged on another one of the first rail and the third rail. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add deceleration means, as taught by Chen ‘352, between the first & third rails of Chen ‘003, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce noise & increase reliability (as suggested by par. 29 of Chen ‘352). Hence, Chen ‘003 as modified would teach a structure wherein when the second rail (36 of Chen ‘003) and the third rail (34 of Chen ‘003) displace relative to the first rail (40 of Chen ‘003) along a predetermined direction, the first predetermined feature (14 of Chen ‘352) and the second predetermined feature (16 of Chen ‘352) abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of the third rail relative to the first rail along the predetermined direction (as in par. 27 of Chen ‘352).
Regarding claims 2 & 15, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches a structure wherein when the second rail (36 of Chen ‘003) and the third rail (34 of Chen ‘003) displace relative to the first rail (40 of Chen ‘003) along another predetermined direction opposite to the predetermined direction, the first predetermined feature (14 of Chen ‘352) and the second predetermined feature (16 of Chen ‘352) abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of the third rail relative to the first rail along the another predetermined direction (as in par. 27 of Chen ‘352).
Regarding claim 3, Chen ‘003 teaches a first bracket (26, 48) and a second bracket (28, 50) displaceable relative to the first bracket along the longitudinal direction (par. 41), the first bracket comprising a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 4-5), the second bracket being connected to the first side of the first bracket in an extending or retracting manner (Fig. 5 & par. 51), and the first rail (40), the second rail (36) and the third rail (34) being arranged on the second side of the first bracket (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Chen ‘003 teaches a first bracket (26, 48) and the second bracket (28, 50) that have different longitudinal lengths (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches a supporting device comprising: a first bracket (26, 48 of Chen ‘003); two slide rails (34, 40 of Chen ‘003) arranged on the first bracket and displaceable relative to each other along a longitudinal direction (par. 38 of Chen ‘003); a first predetermined feature (14 of Chen ‘352) arranged on one of the two slide rails; a second predetermined feature (16 of Chen ‘352) arranged on another one of the two slide rails; a second bracket (28, 50 of Chen ‘003) displaceable relative to the first bracket along the longitudinal direction (par. 41 of Chen ‘003); at least one ventilation hole (A in Fig. 5 Annotated) structure arranged on one of the first bracket and the second bracket (Fig. 5 of Chen ‘003); wherein when the two slide rails displace relative to each other, the first predetermined feature and the second predetermined feature abut against each other for reducing a relative displacement speed of the two slide rails (as in par. 27 of Chen ‘352).
Regarding claim 11, Chen ‘003 teaches an additional slide rail (36), and one (34) of the two slide rails (34, 40) being movably mounted between another one (40) of the two slide rails and the additional slide rail (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Chen ‘003 teaches a first bracket (26, 48) comprises a first side and a second side (Figs. 3-5), the second bracket (28, 50) is connected to the first side of the first bracket (Fig. 5) in an extending or retracting manner (par. 41), and the two slide rails (34, 40) and the additional slide rail (36) are arranged on the second side of the first bracket (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 14, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches a supporting device adapted for a rack comprising a first post (30a of Chen ‘003) and a second post (30b of Chen ‘003), the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (26, 48 of Chen ‘003) configured to be mounted on the first post (Fig. 2 of Chen ‘003), the first bracket comprising a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figs. 3-5 of Chen ‘003); a second bracket (28, 50 of Chen ‘003) configured to be mounted on the second post (Fig. 2 of Chen ‘003), the second bracket being connected to the first side of the first bracket in an extending or retracting manner (par. 41 of Chen ‘003); a first rail (40 of Chen ‘003) arranged on the second side of the first bracket (Figs. 3-4 of Chen ‘003); a second rail (36 of Chen ‘003) arranged on the second side of the first bracket and displaceable relative to the first rail along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 8 & par. 38 of Chen ‘003), the second rail being configured to support an electronic apparatus (par. 37 of Chen ‘003); a third rail (34 of Chen ‘003) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail (par. 38 of Chen ‘003); a first predetermined feature (14 of Chen ‘352) arranged on one of the first rail and the third rail; a second predetermined feature (16 of Chen ‘352) arranged on another one of the first rail and the third rail; wherein when the second rail and the third rail displace relative to the first rail along a predetermined direction, the first predetermined feature and the second predetermined feature abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of one of the third rail and the second rail relative to the first rail along the predetermined direction (as in par. 27 of Chen ‘352).
Claims 4, 13, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003) & Chen (20140327352) in view of Palker (20050211647).
Regarding claims 4, 13, & 16, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (26, 48 of Chen ‘003) & second (28, 50 of Chen ‘003) brackets; but fail(s) to teach first & second ventilation hole structures that can communicate with each other. However, Palker teaches venting means (48, 88) comprising at least one first ventilation hole (48) structure arranged on a first bracket (20) and at least one second ventilation hole structure (88) arranged on a second bracket (22), and when the second bracket is located at a predetermined position relative to the first bracket, the at least one first ventilation hole structure being located at a position corresponding to the at least one second ventilation hole structure (implied by Figs. 2a-2b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add venting means, as taught by Palker, to the first & second brackets of Chen ‘003 as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the passage of air therethrough, thereby facilitating cooling of any components mounted thereupon (as suggested by par. 45 & 50 of Palker).
Regarding claims 13 & 16, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches at least one ventilation hole structure (A of Chen ‘003 and 48 & 88 of Palker) wherein, when the first bracket (26, 48 of Chen ‘003) and the second bracket (28, 50 of Chen ‘003) are mounted on the first post (30a of Chen ‘003) and the second post (30b of Chen ‘003), respectively (as in Fig. 2 of Chen ‘003), the at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker) and the at least one second ventilation hole structure (88 of Palker) being communicated with each other for dissipating heat generated from a predetermined portion of the electronic apparatus supported by the second rail located at a retracted position relative to the first rail (implied by Figs. 1-2b of Palker).
Claims 5-8 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003), Chen (20140327352), & Palker (20050211647) in view of Chen (20150189989).
Regarding claims 5 & 17, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a first bracket further comprises a first wall (B of Chen ‘003), a second wall (C of Chen ‘003) and a lateral wall (D of Chen ‘003) connected between the first wall and the second wall, & at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker) comprising a second part (48 of Palker) arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (as in Figs. 3a-3c of Palker). Chen ‘003 as modified fail(s) to teach a second part of a first ventilation hole structure. However, Chen ‘989 teaches a first ventilation hole structure (E-F in Fig. 6A Annotated) that comprises a first part (E) and a second part (F), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure is arranged on a first wall (G) of a first bracket, and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure is arranged on a lateral wall (H) of the first bracket. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a first part, as taught by Chen ‘989, to the first & second brackets of Chen ‘003 as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the passage of air therethrough, thereby facilitating cooling of any components mounted thereupon.
Regarding claims 6 & 18, Chen ‘989 teaches a first part (E) & a second part (F) of at least one first ventilation hole structure (E-F) that are communicated with each other (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claims 7 & 19, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker & E of Chen ‘989) that comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction (as in Figs. 3a-3b of Palker).
Regarding claim 8, Chen ‘003 as modified teaches at least one second ventilation hole structure (88 of Palker & E of Chen ‘989) and the at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker & E of Chen ‘989) that have identical structures (as in Figs. 3a-3c & 4a-4c of Palker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637