DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on September 30, 2024, May 14, 2025 & October 23, 2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-2, 7-9 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al., [US 2016/0135325]. Chen teaches of a supporting device (fig. 2) comprising: a first bracket (10), the first bracket comprising a first wall (13), a second wall (12) and a lateral wall (11) connected between the first wall and the second wall; a second bracket (such as (20) or combined (20, 30)) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction; at least one first ventilation hole structure arranged on the first bracket (shown as the hole formed from bending (14) for instance), the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (horizontal part) and a second part (vertical part), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket (note figs. 2-2A for instance), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (shown); and at least one second ventilation hole structure (22) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (can be seen in fig. 2A for instance). As to Claim 2, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 2 shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. As to Claim 7, the first bracket and the second bracket have different longitudinal lengths (as mapped, the combined (20, 30) second bracket would be slightly longer in length than the first bracket. 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 (shown in the figures). Regarding Claim 9, again, Chen teaches of a supporting device (fig. 2) adapted for a rack comprising a first post and a second post {such as shown in fig. 7 for instance}, the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (10) configured to be mounted on the first post {such as forward (91)}; at least one slide rail (13) arranged on the first bracket and for supporting an electronic apparatus {80}; a second bracket (such as (20) or combined (20, 30)) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction and configured to be mounted on the second post {such as rearward (91)}; at least one first ventilation hole structure (shown as the hole formed from bending (14) for instance) arranged on the first bracket; and at least one second ventilation hole structure (22) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (can be seen in fig. 2A for instance). As to Claim 17, the first bracket and the second bracket have different longitudinal lengths (as mapped, the combined (20, 30) second bracket would be slightly longer in length than the first bracket).
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 (80), a second wall (76) and a lateral wall (84) connected between the first wall and the second wall; a second bracket (30) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction; at least one first ventilation hole structure arranged on the first bracket (92), the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part (lower horizontal part) and a second part (vertical part), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket (such as along the corner where (80 & 84) meet), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket (shown); and at least one second ventilation hole structure (58) arranged on the second bracket; 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). 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 (shown in the figures).
Claims 9 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenner [US 6,893,091]. Fenner teaches of a supporting device (fig. 2) adapted for a rack comprising a first post and a second post {rack with mounting posts – col. 3}, the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (68) configured to be mounted on the first post {such as a forward mounting post}; at least one slide rail (70) arranged on the first bracket and for supporting an electronic apparatus {such as computer components stored within the racks (12) – col. 3}; a second bracket (106) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction and configured to be mounted on the second post {such as a rearward mounting post}; at least one first ventilation hole structure (rear (92)) arranged on the first bracket; and at least one second ventilation hole structure (112) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (note fig. 2 for instance). As to Claim 17, the first bracket and the second bracket have different longitudinal lengths (note fig. 6).
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 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestro et al., [US 7,188,916]. Silvestro teaches of a supporting device (fig. 1) comprising: a first bracket (22), the first bracket comprising a first wall (lower flange 82’), a second wall (upper flange 82) and a lateral wall (connecting web of (80)) connected between the first wall and the second wall; a second bracket (20) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction; at least one first ventilation hole structure arranged on the first bracket (88); and at least one second ventilation hole structure arranged on the second bracket (48); 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 (note figs. 2A-2B for instance). Silvestro teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed supporting device as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the first ventilation hole structure as prescribed by applicant relative to the components (first wall and lateral wall) of the first bracket (Silvestro shows the first ventilation hole structure as being one part within the lateral wall of the bracket). With regards to the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part and a second part, where the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket, and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket, note the following: the criticality of the limitation is not readily set forth within the disclosure. The location of the ventilation hole appears to be arbitrary, a matter of personal design and lacking a problem to be solved. In this instance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reasons to pursue a ventilation hole located along a corner where two perpendicular surfaces (first and lateral walls) meet in order to prevent weakness within the lateral wall by having too many holes punched out in that planar member alone (i.e., holes along the corner would help to reduce the number of holes along the web / lateral wall thereby retaining a degree of rigidity along the web). Accordingly, providing a ventilation hole along the corner of the bracket is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., retain rigidity and strength along the lateral wall. Furthermore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the ventilation holes by rearranging a row of holes so as to be along a bottom corner of the bracket for instance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 2 shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the at least one second ventilation hole structure and the at least one first ventilation hole structure have identical structures (shown in the figures). Regarding Claim 7, as modified, Silvestro teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed device, but does not show the brackets as having different longitudinal lengths. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of personal preference to vary the shape or size of an element or to vary the distances between elements 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) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the first and second parts of the at least one first ventilation hole structure would be in communication with each other (i.e., the parts make up the entirety of the hole).
Claims 4-6 & 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestro et al., in view of Dopp et al., [US 2001/0006319]. Silvestro 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 Silvestro 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. 1 of Silvestro for instance) to be telescopically slidable into and out of the rack (2) 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 (22) 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 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 9, again, Silvestro as modified by Dopp teaches of a supporting device (fig. 1) adapted for a rack {4} comprising a first post and a second post {8’s such as shown in fig. 1 for instance}, the supporting device comprising: a first bracket (22) configured to be mounted on the first post {such as a forward post}; at least one slide rail ((2) of Dopp) arranged on the first bracket and for supporting an electronic apparatus {equipment unit}; a second bracket (20) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction and configured to be mounted on the second post {such as a rearward post}; at least one first ventilation hole structure (88) arranged on the first bracket; and at least one second ventilation hole structure (48) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (shown). As previously noted, Silvestro 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 Silvestro 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. 1 of Silvestro for instance) to be telescopically slidable into and out of the rack (2) 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, Silvestro teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed supporting device as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the first ventilation hole structure as prescribed by applicant relative to the components (first wall and lateral wall) of the first bracket (Silvestro shows the first ventilation hole structure as being one part within the lateral wall of the bracket). With regards to the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part and a second part, where the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket, and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket, note the following: the criticality of the limitation is not readily set forth within the disclosure. The location of the ventilation hole appears to be arbitrary, a matter of personal design and lacking a problem to be solved. In this instance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reasons to pursue a ventilation hole located along a corner where two perpendicular surfaces (first and lateral walls) meet in order to prevent weakness within the lateral wall by having too many holes punched out in that planar member alone (i.e., holes along the corner would help to reduce the number of holes along the web / lateral wall thereby retaining a degree of rigidity along the web). Accordingly, providing a ventilation hole along the corner of the bracket is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., retain rigidity and strength along the lateral wall. Furthermore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the ventilation holes by rearranging a row of holes so as to be along a bottom corner of the bracket for instance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). 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 (i.e., the parts make up the entirety of the hole). Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 2 shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, the first bracket (22) 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8 & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenner in view of Chen. Fenner teaches of a supporting device (fig. 2) comprising: a first bracket (68), the first bracket comprising a first wall (bottom flange), a second wall (top flange) and a lateral wall (vertical web) connected between the first wall and the second wall; a second bracket (110) displaceable relative to the first bracket along a longitudinal direction; at least one first ventilation hole structure arranged on the first bracket (92); and at least one second ventilation hole structure (112) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (note figs. 2 & 7 for instance). Fenner teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed supporting device as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show the first ventilation hole structure as prescribed by applicant relative to the components (first wall and lateral wall) of the first bracket (Fenner shows the first ventilation hole structure as being one part within the lateral wall of the bracket). With regards to this aspect, Chen is cited as an evidence reference where at least one first ventilation hole structure (the hole formed from bending (14)) comprises a first part (horizontal part) and a second part (vertical part), the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on a first wall (bottom flange) of a first bracket (note figs. 2-2A for instance), and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on a lateral wall (vertical web) of the first bracket (shown). 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 Fenner so as to form the hole along the bottom of the web in view of Chen’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device since moving a row of the holes down along the bottom of the web would help to promote the rigidity of the web itself (not so many holes through a central portion of the flat web member) while still permitting air flow through the bracket. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprises a plurality of first ventilation hole structures (fig. 2 shows multiple hole structures) arranged at intervals along the longitudinal direction. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the first and second ventilation holes are not identical structures (first are larger than the second); 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 by making all the holes the same size as (112) for instance, i.e., multiple smaller rectangles as opposed to less larger rectangles) 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 7, as modified, the first bracket and the second bracket have different longitudinal lengths (shown figs. 5A & 6). Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the first part and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure are communicated with each other (shown in the figures). As to Claims 10-12, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
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. 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}; 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}; at least one first ventilation hole structure (92) arranged on the first bracket; and at least one second ventilation hole structure (58) arranged on the second bracket; 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 (shown). 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, but does not show the first ventilation hole structure as prescribed by applicant relative to the components (first wall and lateral wall) of the first bracket (Sedor shows the first ventilation hole structure as being one part within the lateral wall of the bracket). With regards to the at least one first ventilation hole structure comprising a first part and a second part, where the first part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the first wall of the first bracket, and the second part of the at least one first ventilation hole structure being arranged on the lateral wall of the first bracket, note the following: the criticality of the limitation is not readily set forth within the disclosure. The location of the ventilation hole appears to be arbitrary, a matter of personal design and lacking a problem to be solved. In this instance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have good reasons to pursue a ventilation hole located along a corner where two perpendicular surfaces (first and lateral walls) meet in order to prevent weakness within the lateral wall by having too many holes punched out in that planar member alone (i.e., holes along the corner would help to reduce the number of holes along the web / lateral wall thereby retaining a degree of rigidity along the web). Accordingly, providing a ventilation hole along the corner of the bracket is likely not the product of innovation, but of ordinary skill in the art and common sense as the desired outcome would yield a predictable result, i.e., retain rigidity and strength along the lateral wall. Furthermore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the ventilation holes by rearranging a row of holes so as to be along a bottom corner of the bracket for instance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and therefore will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). 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 (i.e., the parts make up the entirety of the hole). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various support device assemblies.
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
April 22, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights