Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/908,239

SLIDING RAIL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 07, 2024
Priority
Jul 05, 2024 — TW 113125311
Examiner
WILKENS, JANET MARIE
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Fositek Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
910 granted / 1256 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1275
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
64.9%
+24.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1256 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). 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. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/908354 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach a sliding rail device adapted to be mounted to a server rack and connected to a linking member, said sliding rail device comprising: an exterior frame that is adapted to be fixed to the server rack, and that has first and second ends, said first end being opposite to said second end in a longitudinal direction; a frame surface, a fixing surface opposite to said frame surface, extending between said first and second ends, and adapted to face the server rack, and an exterior groove extending through said frame surface and said fixing surface; an outer rail that is disposed on said frame surface, and that has a first outer rail surface, a second outer rail surface opposite to said first outer rail surface and facing said frame surface, and a connecting groove extending through said first outer rail surface and said second outer rail surface, and corresponding in position to said exterior groove; an intermediate rail that is movably engaged with said outer rail, and that has an intermediate rail surface facing said outer rail; and a blocking mechanism that has a positioning member movably extending through said exterior groove and said connecting groove, and adapted to be fixed to the linking member, and a blocking member disposed on said intermediate rail surface, and having a blocking groove and a blocking protrusion, said blocking groove having a blocking portion that extends in an up-down direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and an inclined portion that extends from an upper end of said blocking portion toward said second end, and that is downwardly inclined, said blocking protrusion being disposed between said blocking portion and said inclined portion, said positioning member being engaged with and movable along said blocking groove; wherein, when said intermediate rail is moved in the longitudinal direction relative to said outer rail, said positioning member is pushed by said blocking member to move downwardly along said inclined portion, and is consequently adapted to move the linking member downwardly and adapted to drive another sliding rail device that is connected to the linking member and that is identical to said sliding rail device to move synchronously in a manner where a positioning member of the another sliding rail device is moved downwardly along a blocking portion of a blocking groove of the another sliding rail device to be adjacent to a blocking protrusion of the another sliding rail device so as to prevent movement of an intermediate rail of the another sliding rail device relative to an outer rail of the another sliding rail device. Wherein said positioning member has a positioning portion movably extending through said exterior groove and said connecting groove, an abutting portion extending from said positioning portion and abutting against said second outer rail surface, and a joining portion connected to said abutting portion and adapted to be fixed to the linking member. Wherein said positioning portion and said joining portion are cylinders, said abutting portion being a circular plate. Since claims 1-3 are anticipated by the claims of the co-pending application, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. Thus, the invention of claims 1-3 of the application is in effect a species of the generic invention of co-pending application. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-3 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of the co-application, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in co-pending claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (2024/0263489) in view of Lu (2018/0066454). Chen teaches a sliding rail device (Fig. 3) adapted to be mounted to a server rack (Fig. 1) and connected to a linking member (30), said sliding rail device comprising: an exterior frame (24) that is adapted to be fixed to the server rack, and that has first and second ends, said first end being opposite to said second end in a longitudinal direction; a frame surface (b; see annotated figure below), a fixing surface (a) opposite to said frame surface, extending between said first and second ends, and adapted to face the server rack, and an exterior groove (slot in 24 for 48) extending through said frame surface and said fixing surface; an outer rail (42) that is disposed on said frame surface, and that has a first outer rail surface (d), a second outer rail surface (c) opposite to said first outer rail surface and facing said frame surface, and a connecting groove (59) extending through said first outer rail surface and said second outer rail surface, and corresponding in position to said exterior groove; an intermediate rail (44) that is movably engaged with said outer rail, and that has an intermediate rail surface (e) facing said outer rail; and a blocking mechanism (48) that has a positioning member (54) movably extending through said exterior groove and said connecting groove, and adapted to be fixed to the linking member (30) and a blocking member (50) disposed on said intermediate rail surface. Chen fails to teach the construction of the blocking member. Lu teaches a blocking member (2; Fig. 2) disposed on a drawer (1), and having a blocking groove (a; see annotated figure below) and a blocking protrusion (b), said blocking groove having a blocking portion (c) that extends in an up-down direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and an inclined portion (21) that extends from an upper end of said blocking portion toward said second end, and that is downwardly inclined, the blocking protrusion being disposed between said blocking portion and said inclined portion, and a positioning member (31) being engaged with and movable along said blocking groove. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen by using an alternate blocking member on the intermediate rail, i.e. using the blocking member of Lu in place of the blocking member presently used, to provide a simplified structure to guide the positioning member which then moves the linking member when the drawer is extended. Wherein, when said intermediate rail of Chen is moved in the longitudinal direction relative to said outer rail, said positioning member is pushed by said blocking member of Lu to move downwardly along said inclined portion, and is consequently adapted to move the linking member downwardly and adapted to drive another sliding rail device that is connected to the linking member and that is identical to said sliding rail device to move synchronously in a manner where a positioning member of the another sliding rail device is moved downwardly along a blocking portion of a blocking groove of the another sliding rail device to be adjacent to a blocking protrusion of the another sliding rail device so as to prevent movement of an intermediate rail of the another sliding rail device relative to an outer rail of the another sliding rail device. For claim 2, Chen in view of Lu further teaches that said positioning member (54) has a positioning portion movably extending through said exterior groove and said connecting groove, an abutting portion (portion of 48 between 52 and 54) extending from said positioning portion and abutting against said second outer rail surface, and a joining portion (52) connected to said abutting portion and adapted to be fixed to the linking member. For claim 3, Chen in view of Lu further teaches that said positioning portion and said joining portion are cylinders, said abutting portion being a circular plate. PNG media_image1.png 687 652 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 497 502 media_image2.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References 20260013067; 20250215924; 10631639; 20120061551; 20110316397; 7404611; 4936640 and 2882112 teach various sliding rail devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST. 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. Wilkens April 15, 2026 /JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 07, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679593
HALF-BARREL KEG PALLET
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673803
METAL PALLET ASSEMBLY
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12660913
FURNITURE TOP STRUCTURE
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12660915
DESK FOR INDUSTRIAL DESIGNERS
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653305
FURNITURE TRAY TABLE
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 1m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1256 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month