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.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 10, the subject matter is duplicative of the claimed scope already established within Claim 9 and therefore presents a clarity issue as to the metes and bounds of patent protection being sought by applicant. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claimed subject matter within Claim 10 is already accounted for within amended Claim 9 and therefore does not further limit the claimed scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedor et al., [US 10,606,011]. Sedor teaches of a supporting device (fig. 5) comprising: a first bracket (70), the first bracket comprising a first wall (76), a second wall (80) and a lateral wall (84) connected between the first wall and the second wall of the first bracket; a second bracket (30) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction, the second bracket comprising a first wall (40), a second wall (46) and a lateral wall (52) connected between the first wall and the second wall of the second bracket; at least one first ventilation hole structure (viewed as the combined (78, 92) structure) as arranged on the first bracket, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (78) and a second part (92), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3); and at least one second ventilation hole structure (viewed as the combined (42, 58) structure) arranged on the second bracket; the at least one second ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (42) and a second part (58), the first part of the at least one second ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the second bracket (note fig. 2), and the second part of the at least one second ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the second bracket (note fig. 2); wherein when the second bracket is located at a predetermined position relative to the first bracket, the at least one first ventilation hole structure is located at a position corresponding to the at least one second ventilation hole structure (such as when (30) & (70) are slid relative to each other for mounting on different sized racks (160) for instance), such that the second part of the first ventilation hole structure and the second part of the second ventilation hole structure permit heat generated from a predetermined position of an electronic apparatus (HDFE RU enclosure for instance) to be dissipated therethrough transversely (note fig. 5 showing the ability of heat to be transferred through the brackets horizontally), and the first part of the first ventilation hole structure and the first part of the second ventilation hole structure permit the heat generated from the predetermined portion of the electronic apparatus to be dissipated therethrough vertically (note fig. 5 showing the ability of heat to be transferred through the brackets vertically). As to Claim 2, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 3 shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. As to Claim 3, the at least one second ventilation hole structure and the at least one first ventilation hole structure have identical structures (shown in the figures). As to Claim 8, the first part and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure are communicated with each other (via the intervening bracket material between the two parts for instance – so far as broadly recited).
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 4-7 & 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedor et al., in view of Dopp et al., [US 2001/0006319] Sedor teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed supporting device as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show slide rails combined with the supporting device. As to this aspect, Dopp is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a three member slide rail assembly (fig. 1) being used to mount a drawer (drawer being analogous to a movable chassis supporting an electronic apparatus) within a cabinet (cabinet being analogous to a housing / rack). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sedor so as to incorporate a slide rail assembly within the supporting device in view of Dopp’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing the drawer / tray / chassis supporting the electronic apparatus (note fig. 13 of Sedor for instance) to be telescopically slidable into and out of the rack (160) at a convenience to an end user since the addition of a sliding rail assembly would permit equipment stored within the rack to be extending out of the rack when needed and retracted back into the rack when in storage. As modified, the first bracket (70) comprises a first side (side adjacent to the second bracket) and a second side (interior to the rack side) opposite to the first side, the second bracket (30) is connected to the first side of the first bracket in an extending or retracting manner, and at least one slide rail (such as rail (2) of Dopp) would be arranged on the second side of the first bracket. Regarding Claim 5, as modified, the at least one slide rail comprises a first rail (2) and a second rail (6) displaceable relative to the first rail along the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the supporting device would further comprise a first predetermined feature (8) and a second predetermined feature (12), the at least one slide rail further comprising a third rail (4) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail, the first predetermined feature being arranged on the first rail (2), the second predetermined feature being arranged on the third rail (4), and when the second rail and the third rail displace relative to the first rail along a predetermined direction (such as in a retracted 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. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the brackets appear to be of the same length; however, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element (such as making the brackets of different lengths so as to better fit in between spaced apart posts while requiring less bracket material for a cost savings) depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of a component. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding Claim 9, again, Sedor as modified by Dopp teaches of a supporting device (fig. 13) adapted for a rack {160} comprising a first post and a second post {defined as four post rack}, the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (70) configured to be mounted on the first post {such as a forward post}, the first bracket comprising a first wall (76), a second wall (80) and a lateral wall (84) connected between the first wall and the second wall of the first bracket; at least one slide rail ((2) of Dopp) arranged on the first bracket and for supporting an electronic apparatus {equipment unit}; a second bracket (30) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction and configured to be mounted on the second post {such as a rearward post}, the second bracket comprising a first wall (40), a second wall (46) and a lateral wall (52) connected between the first wall and the second wall of the second bracket; at least one first ventilation hole structure (viewed as the combined (78, 92) structure) arranged on the first bracket, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (78) and a second part (92), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3); and at least one second ventilation hole structure (viewed as the combined (42, 58) structure) arranged on the second bracket, the at least one second ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (42) and a second part (58), the first part of the at least one second ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the second bracket (note fig. 2), and the second part of the at least one second ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the second bracket (note fig. 2); wherein when the first bracket and the second bracket are mounted on the first post and the second post, respectively, the at least one first ventilation hole structure and the at least one second ventilation hole structure are communicated with each other for dissipating heat generated from a predetermined portion of the electronic apparatus (such as when (30) & (70) are slid relative to each other for mounting on different sized racks (160) for instance), such that the second part of the first ventilation hole structure and the second part of the second ventilation hole structure permit heat generated from a predetermined position of the electronic apparatus (HDFE RU enclosure for instance) to be dissipated therethrough transversely (note fig. 5 showing the ability of heat to be transferred through the brackets horizontally), and the first part of the first ventilation hole structure and the first part of the second ventilation hole structure permit the heat generated from the predetermined portion of the electronic apparatus to be dissipated therethrough vertically (note fig. 5 showing the ability of heat to be transferred through the brackets vertically). As previously noted, Sedor does not show slide rails combined with the supporting device and therefore Dopp is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a three member slide rail assembly (fig. 1) being used to mount a drawer (drawer being analogous to a movable chassis supporting an electronic apparatus) within a cabinet (cabinet being analogous to a housing / rack). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Sedor so as to incorporate a slide rail assembly within the supporting device in view of Dopp’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing the drawer / tray / chassis supporting the electronic apparatus (note fig. 13 of Sedor for instance) to be telescopically slidable into and out of the rack (160) at a convenience to an end user since the addition of a sliding rail assembly would permit equipment stored within the rack to be extending out of the rack when needed and retracted back into the rack when in storage. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, Sedor teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed supporting device as outlined {mapped} above, including the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (78) and a second part (92), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (note fig. 3). Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the first and second parts of the at least one first ventilation hole structure would be in communication with each other (via the intervening bracket material between the two parts for instance – so far as broadly recited). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 5A shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the first bracket (70) comprises a first side (side adjacent to the second bracket) and a second side (interior to the rack side) opposite to the first side, the second bracket is connected to the first side of the first bracket in an extending or retracting manner, and at least one slide rail (such as rail (2) of Dopp) would be arranged on the second side of the first bracket. Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the at least one slide rail comprises a first rail (such as (2) of Dopp) connected to the second side of the first bracket and a second rail (such as (6) of Dopp) configured to support the electronic apparatus. Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the at least one slide rail further comprises a third rail (such as (4) of Dopp) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail. Regarding Claim 16, as modified, the supporting device would further comprise a first predetermined feature (8) and a second predetermined feature (12), the at least one slide rail further comprising a third rail (4) movably mounted between the first rail and the second rail, the first predetermined feature being arranged on the first rail (2), the second predetermined feature being arranged on the third rail (4), and when the second rail and the third rail displace relative to the first rail along a predetermined direction (such as in a retracted 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. Regarding Claim 17, as modified, the brackets appear to be of the same length; however, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element (such as making the brackets of different lengths so as to better fit in between spaced apart posts while requiring less bracket material for a cost savings) depending upon the needs and/or preferences of the user, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or configuration of a component. A change of this degree is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon further review, the rejections attributed to the Chen, Fenner, Silvestro, Silvestro / Dopp, and Fenner / Chen rejections have been withdrawn. However, the rejections attributed to Sedor and Sedor / Dopp are maintained with a revised mapped per the amended claim scope.
Regarding the Sedor reference, "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 63 l, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. The Office determines the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. Accordingly, the position being put forth that each and every element as set forth in the rejected claim(s) have been mapped to a corresponding element within the prior art and thus a prima facie case of anticipation has been established.
Regarding the combined Sedor & Dopp references, the position is taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396.
Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, 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.
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.
JOH
July 11, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights