DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: REPLACE “said safety protrusion” WITH –said protrusion--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No.: 20220047075 (“WU et al.”).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 4. Wu et al. discloses Claim 1- a safety slide rail device (100, as seen in Figs. 1-11) comprising: an outer rail (30) unit including an outer rail (30) that has a sliding surface (31), and a safety blocking member (32) that is directly disposed on said sliding surface (31); and an intermediate rail (20) slidably and directly disposed on said sliding surface (31) and having a first surface ( rear surface of 21) that faces said sliding surface (31) of said outer rail (30); wherein said safety blocking member (32) is frictionally engaged in frictional contact with said first surface (rear surface of 21) of said intermediate rail (20) so as to impede sliding movement of said intermediate rail (20) relative to said outer rail (30); Claim 2-wherein said safety blocking member (32) has a protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) in frictional contact with said intermediate rail (20); Claim 4- wherein said safety blocking member (32) is made of one of a metal material and a plastic material.
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 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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over WU et al. as applied to Claim 2 above, in view of US Patent No.: 6883885 (“Judge et al.”).
Wu et al. discloses wherein: said safety blocking member (32) further has a resilient arm portion (322), said protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) is formed on said resilient arm portion (322).
Judge et al. discloses a similar invention that has a blocking member (120, 120a) with a main body portion that is formed with an opening, and a cantilevered resilient arm portion (126, 126a) that extends from said main body portion into said opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the protrusion could extend from the resilient cantilevered within an opening of the main body to maintain a stable connection with the main body and the sliding surface. Furthermore, utilizing an alternative design choice while performing the same function involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over WU et al. as applied to Claim 2 above, alone.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Wu et al. discloses wherein said safety protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) has a protruding surface; Claim 6- wherein said intermediate rail (20) further has an engaging recess; and said protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) of said safety blocking member (32) is resiliently and removably engaged with said engaging recess.
Wu et al. discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) has a dome surface.
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 shape of the protrusion (323, best seen in Fig.6) to have a dome surface, as a simple round shape is easier to manufacturer. It has been held that a change of shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B))
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:30-5:30.
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 on 5712703742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights