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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahasi JPH10329612 in view of Mildner DE102011118152.
Regarding independent claim 1, Takahasi discloses, in Figures 1-6,
A rail assembly (Takahasi; Fig. 1-6; see labeled figure below) comprising:
a fixed rail;
a movable rail slidably assembled to the fixed rail;
a lock module mounted on the movable rail and configured to lock the movable rail to the fixed rail by being coupled to a fixed locking rail mounted on the fixed rail; and
a lever module mounted on the movable rail and configured to release coupling between the fixed locking rail and the lock module;
wherein the lever module comprises:
a lever housing upper surface mounted on the movable rail; and
a sliding lever slidably mounted in the lever housing and configured to separate, when horizontally moved in a first direction, the lock module from the fixed locking rail.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mildner labeled Fig. 1-2.
PNG
media_image2.png
709
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mildner labeled Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
624
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mildner labeled Fig. 2.
While Takahasi discloses a lever housing upper surface mounted on the movable rail, Takahasi does not disclose a lever housing.
Mildner teaches a lever housing (Mildner; Fig. 2; abstract: “The guide element (5) is movable against the force of the spring (10) from the contact position in the guide groove (3) by means of an actuating lever mounted in the housing (4) by pivoting an adjusting lever (21) mounted in the housing (4).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lever housing upper surface as taught by Takahasi to comprise lever housing side walls as taught by Mildner for the purpose of minimizing dust/debris from reaching the lever components.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Takahasi teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The rail assembly of claim 1, wherein the lever module further comprises a plurality of rollers adjacent to the sliding lever and axially rotatably mounted on the lever housing (Takahasi; Fig. 1; rollers 12).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Takahasi teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The rail assembly of claim 1, wherein the lever module further comprises a lever spring mounted between the sliding lever and the lever housing and configured to be compressed when the sliding lever is horizontally moved in the first direction (Takahasi; Fig. 1; lock spring 16).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahasi JPH10329612 in view of Mildner DE102011118152 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boinais US20190039535.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Takahasi teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The rail assembly of claim 1.
Modified Takahasi does not teach wherein: the movable rail comprises a movable rail stopper configured to limit movement of the movable rail in a second direction; and the fixed rail has a fixed rail stopper configured to stop, at a predetermined position, the movable rail stopper moving with the movable rail.
Boinais teaches wherein: the movable rail (Boinais; panel 12) comprises a movable rail stopper (Boinais; elastically compressible layer 46) configured to limit movement of the movable rail in a second direction; and the fixed rail (Boinais; the assembly of guides 18 and the upper curved portion of the frame 16) has a fixed rail stopper (Boinais; the upper curved portion of the frame 16) configured to stop, at a predetermined position, the movable rail stopper moving with the movable rail (Boinais; the sequence of Fig. 2-5 and 7-8).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahasi in view of Mildner and Boinais as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Nam US20220154516.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Takahasi teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The rail assembly of claim 11, wherein at least one of the movable rail stopper and the fixed rail stopper comprises a first damper configured to reduce noise generated when colliding with another of the movable rail stopper and the fixed rail stopper (Boinais; elastically compressible layer 46).
Modified Takahasi is silent regarding a first rubber damper.
Nam teaches a first rubber damper (Nam; [0016] rubber elastic material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first damper elastic material as taught by Modified Takahasi to be a rubber material as taught by Nam for the purpose of providing a durable damper with that minimizes noise from impact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 13-14 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.
Hayakawa JP3621599 teaches a console slide support.
Bae KR20220056374 teaches a console sliding armrest.
Mildner GB2496740 teaches rails and guide grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 6/23/26
Prosecution Insights