DETAILED ACTION
Since the Office Action dated 7/29/2026 inadvertently omitted an annotated figure, applicant is hereby provided with a complete, correct Office Action responsive to applicant's communication filed 7/05/2026. The time for response to this Office Action has been restarted. Any inconvenience is regretted.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
It is noted that, although claim 8 in the claim set filed 7/5/26 carries a status identifier of “(original)”, the text of claim 8 in the 7/5/26 claim set (and in the 4/9/26 claim set) differs from the text of claim 8 in the 10/8/24 claim set. Under 37 CFR 1.121(c), “The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application.” Hence, for examination purposes, the examiner is considering the 4/9/26 version of claim 8 to have replaced the 10/8/24 version of claim 8, and the 7/5/26 version of claim 8 to have replaced the 4/9/26 version of claim 8. Applicant is reminded all claim amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c), with the text of any added or deleted subject matter appropriately marked, and proper status identifiers used. It is noted that any future reply which fails to do so may be deemed non-compliant.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-2, 4-11, & 13-20 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 1-2, 9, & 14-15 are 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 1-2, 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 1-2, 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 1-2, 9, & 14-15 are 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 1-2, 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 1-2, 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 14-15, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003) in view of Huang (20040119388).
Regarding claims 1, 10, & 14, Chen teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a supporting device comprising: a first bracket (26, 48) comprising a first side (B in Fig. 5 Annotated) and a second side (i.e., side of 48 facing toward the first rail (40) - marked “C” in Fig. 5 Annotated) opposite to the first side (Figs. 3-5) along a transverse direction (Y1); a second bracket (28, 50) being connected to the first side of the first bracket in an extending or retracting manner and displaceable relative to the first bracket (par. 41) along a longitudinal direction (Z1); a first rail (40); a second rail (36) displaceable relative to the first rail along the longitudinal direction (par. 38); a third rail (34) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail (par. 38); wherein the first rail, the second rail and the third rail are arranged on (Fig. 3) the second side (C) of the first bracket (26, 48). Chen fail(s) to teach first & second predetermined features.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Huang teaches stopping means (12, 32) comprising a first predetermined feature (12) arranged on a first rail (1); and a second predetermined feature (32) arranged on a third rail (3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add stopping means, as taught by Huang, to the first & third rails of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent accidental detachment of the third rail from the first rail (as suggested by par. 5 of Huang). Hence, Chen as modified would teach a structure wherein when the second rail (36 of Chen) and the third rail (34 of Chen) displace relative to the first rail (40 of Chen) along a predetermined direction (D1 of Chen) parallel to the longitudinal direction (Z1 of Chen), the first predetermined feature (12 of Huang) and the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) 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. 17 & Fig. 3a of Huang). It is noted that, in Huang, the first (12) & second (32) predetermined features are configured to abut against each other in a direction extending from the first rail (1) to the third rail (3); and, in Chen, the direction extending from the first rail (40) to the third rail (34) is the transverse direction (Y1). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Chen as modified, the first predetermined feature (12 of Huang) and the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) would be configured to abut against each other in the transverse direction (Y1 of Chen), and the transverse direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Z1 of Chen) and a height direction (X1 of Chen) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claims 2 & 15, Chen as modified teaches a structure wherein when the second rail (36 of Chen) and the third rail (34 of Chen) displace relative to the first rail (40 of Chen) along another predetermined direction (D2 of Chen) opposite to the predetermined direction (D1 of Chen), the first predetermined feature (12 of Huang) and the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) abut against each other for reducing a displacement speed of the third rail relative to the first rail along the another predetermined direction (implied by Figs. 3a & par. 17 of Huang - note that, given the distance that Huang’s first predetermined feature (12) protrudes from the first rail (1), the first predetermined feature can obstruct the second predetermined feature (32) regardless of whether the third rail (3) is moving outward or inward relative to the first rail).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches a first bracket (26, 48) and a second bracket (28, 50) that have different longitudinal lengths (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified teaches a first bracket (26, 48 of Chen) comprising a first side (B of Chen) and a second side (C of Chen) opposite to the first side (Figs. 3-5 of Chen) along a transverse direction (Y1 of Chen); two slide rails (34, 40 of Chen) arranged on the second side (C of Chen) of the first bracket (Fig. 3 of Chen) and displaceable relative to each other (par. 38 of Chen) along a longitudinal direction (Z1 of Chen); a first predetermined feature (32 of Huang) arranged on one (34 of Chen) of the two slide rails; a second predetermined feature (12 of Huang) arranged on another (40 of Chen) one of the two slide rails; a second bracket (28, 50 of Chen) connected to the first side (B of Chen) of the first bracket (26, 48 of Chen); at least one ventilation hole structure (A of Chen) arranged on one (26, 48 of Chen) of the first bracket and the second bracket; wherein when the two slide rails displace relative to each other along the longitudinal direction, the first predetermined feature (12 of Huang) and the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) abut against each other for reducing a relative displacement speed of the two slide rails (as in par. 17 & Fig. 3a of Huang).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches an additional slide rail (36) arranged on the second side (C) of the first bracket (26, 48), 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 (36).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches a supporting device adapted for a rack comprising a first post (30a) and a second post (30b), the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (26, 48) configured to be mounted on the first post (Fig. 2); a second bracket (28, 50) configured to be mounted on the second post (Fig. 2); and a second rail (36) being configured to support (Figs. 1-2 & 8-10) an electronic apparatus (20 - see par. 37).
Regarding claim 20, Chen as modified teaches a first predetermined feature (12 of Huang) is a protruding portion (12 of Huang) of an elastic (par. 7, 15, 20 of Huang) structure (12 of Huang) protruding towards (as in Figs. 3a-3b of Huang) the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) in the transverse direction (Y1 of Chen), the second predetermined feature (32 of Huang) is a protruding section (32 of Huang) protruding towards the first predetermined feature in the transverse direction (Y1 of Chen), and the protruding portion of the elastic structure is configured to resiliently deform to accumulate a resilient force in the transverse direction (as in Fig. 3b & par. 18 of Huang).
Claims 4, 13, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003) & Huang (20040119388) in view of Palker (20050211647).
Regarding claims 4, 13, & 16, Chen as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including first (26, 48 of Chen) and second (28, 50 of Chen) 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) configured to be communicated with the at least one first ventilation hole structure (implied by Figs. 2a-2b), 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 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 claim 13, Chen as modified teaches at least one ventilation hole structure (A of Chen ‘003 and 48 & 88 of Palker) comprising first (48 of Palker) and second (88 of Palker) ventilation hole structures.
Regarding claim 16, Chen as modified teaches a structure wherein, when the first bracket (26, 48 of Chen) and the second bracket (28, 50 of Chen) are mounted on the first post (30a of Chen) and the second post (30b of Chen), respectively, the at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker) and the at least one second ventilation hole structure (88 of Palker) are communicated with each other for dissipating heat generated from a predetermined portion of the electronic apparatus (20 of Chen) supported by the second rail (36 of Chen) located at a retracted position relative to the first rail (40 of Chen).
Claims 5-8 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (20230099003), Huang (20040119388) & 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 (26, 48 of Chen ‘003) further comprises a first wall (70a of Chen ‘003), a second wall (70b of Chen ‘003) and a lateral wall (72 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 ‘003 as modified teaches a first part (E of Chen ‘989) & a second part (48 of Palker) of at least one first ventilation hole structure (48 of Palker & E of Chen ‘989) that are communicated with each other (as in Fig. 6A of Chen ‘989).
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 (as in Figs. 3a-3b of Palker) along the longitudinal direction (Z1 of Chen ‘003).
Regarding claim 8, Chen ‘003 teaches a first bracket (26, 48) and a second bracket (28, 50) that have identical structures (D on 26 & 28 - see Figs. 3-5 & 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Said arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
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
Prosecution Insights