DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/308,296, filed on June 9th, 2026.
Status of claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, Examiner proposes amending the limitation in lines 1-3 to read as --wherein each of the inner and outer walls has a hole, wherein each hole is aligned along a transverse axis and are arranged between the first end and the
Regarding claim 16, Examiner proposes amending the limitation in lines 15-19 to read --at least one ridge of the two convex portions having on its lower face a protruding blade obtained by cutting and folding the metal body along the longitudinal axis, wherein each of the inner and outer walls has a hole, the holes being aligned along a transverse axis and being arranged between the first end and the convex portions and that each of the inner and outer walls of each convex portion has a hole and that they are aligned with one another.
Regarding claim 16, Examiner proposes amending the limitation in lines 27-28 to read --the rod being inserted in the holes to prevent removal of the pin-- as the blocking member is early defined as a rod that is capable of passing through the holes in lines 22-23 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the at least one protruding blade” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner does recognize that line 8 of claim 1 defines of “a protruding blade”. Thus, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the at least one protruding blade reads as “the
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one protruding blade” in line 22 and lines 23-24 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner does recognize that line 16 of the claim defines of “a protruding blade”. Thus, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the at least one protruding blade reads as “the
Claim 15 recites “have passed through a first opening of the U-shaped rail” in line 23. It is unclear if the “first opening” is referring to one of the openings of the sidewalls of the U-shaped rail defined in line 5 of the claim, or if an additional opening is being defined. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the first opening refers to one of the openings of the sidewalls and will interpret the limitation as reading as “have passed through one of the openings of the U-shaped rail”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the at least one protruding blade” in line 19, line 25, and line 26 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner does recognize that line 16 of the claim defines of “a protruding blade”. Thus, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the at least one protruding blade reads as “the
Claim 16 recites the limitation “have passed through a second opening of the U-shaped rail” in lines 25-26 of the claim. It is unclear if the “second opening” is referring to one of the openings of the sidewalls of the U-shaped rail defined in line 5 of the claim, or if an additional opening is being defined. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the second opening is referring to the openings of the sidewalls and will interpret the limitation as reading as “have passed through both of the openings of the U-shaped rail”.
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, 5-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Azevedo et al. (US 7,415,752; hereinafter De Azevedo).
Regarding claim 1, De Azevedo discloses a pin (1) comprising:
a metal body (Col. 2 lines 7-12 state the pin is metal) extending along a longitudinal insertion axis (see Annotated Fig. 1 below) and having a first and a second end along the longitudinal insertion axis (see Annotated Fig. 1), an upper face and a lower face opposite the upper face (see Annotated Fig. 2 below);
two convex portions (see Annotated Fig. 3 below) each defined by an inclined inner wall and an inclined outer wall (see Annotated Fig. 3), the inclined inner and outer walls of each convex portion joining together to form a ridge (see Annotated Fig. 2) extending along the longitudinal insertion axis, at least one ridge of the two convex portions having on its lower face a protruding blade (13; Col. 3 lines 24-33 state that each ridge may have their own protruding blade 13) obtained by cutting and folding the metal body along the longitudinal insertion axis (protruding blade is capable of being formed by cutting and folding the metal body as stated in Col. 2 lines 7-12; see **NOTE below);
a concave portion (see Annotated Fig. 2) connecting the inner walls of each convex portion via a central surface (see Annotated Fig. 2);
and at least one blocking member (10, 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
591
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
636
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
**NOTE: Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, De Azevedo discloses wherein the at least one blocking member (10, 11) is formed by a projecting rib on the upper face (blocking members are in the form of projecting ribs extending from the upper face as seen in Fig. 4-5), obtained by cutting and folding the metal body along a transverse axis (blocking members are capable of being formed by cutting the metal body, see Col. 4 lines 3-4, **NOTE above).
Regarding claim 6, De Azevedo discloses wherein the at least one blocking member (10, 11) is defined by a lug extending outwardly along a transverse axis (the blocking members 10, 11 are projecting pieces, i.e. lugs, that project down towards the central surface).
Regarding claim 7, De Azevedo discloses wherein the lug is folded back toward the lower face (the lugs 10, 11 are folded away from portions 3, 4 of the pin and towards the lower face of their opposing convex portion).
Regarding claim 8, De Azevedo discloses wherein the pin further comprises at least one protruding blade (13) on the ridge of each convex portion (Col. 3 lines 24-33 state that each ridge may have their own protruding blade 13).
Regarding claim 10, De Azevedo discloses wherein the pin further comprises exactly one protruding blade (13) on the ridge of each convex portion (Col. 3 lines 24-33 state that each ridge may have their own protruding blade 13), the protruding blades being offset with respect to one another along the longitudinal insertion axis (via the space apart of the ridges, as seen in Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, De Azevedo discloses wherein each ridge has a plateau (the ridges identified in Annotated Fig. 2 are longitudinal plateaus that extend along the longitudinal insertion axis of the pin), each protruding blade (13) being cut in only part of a width along a transverse axis of the plateau (the protruding blades 13 are cut in only a width of the plateaus along a transverse axis as seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, De Azevedo discloses wherein the first end has a beveled shape (blocking elements 10, 11 produce a beveled shape at the first end).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Azevedo in view of the publication “What is Tempered Steel?” by One Monroe (hereinafter Monroe; https://monroeengineering.com/blog/what-is-tempered-steel/).
Regarding claim 13, De Azevedo does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal body comprises tempered steel.
Monroe teaches of the use of tempered steel, which provides the benefits of increased strength, increased resistance to wear and tear, and greater withstanding to deformation (see section titled Benefits of Tempered Steel).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De Azevedo with the teachings of Monroe, to have the metal body of the pin comprise tempered steel, in order to provide the pin with greater strength, increased resistance to wear and tear, and a greater withstanding to deformation.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 2, 6, and 14, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,188,509. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, De Azevedo does not explicitly disclose that the pin further comprises two protruding blades aligned along the longitudinal insertion axis on the ridge of each convex portion. De Azevedo only discloses of each ridge having a single protruding blade. It would not be obvious for the pin of De Azevedo to have two protruding blades on each ridge. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, absent Applicant’s own disclosure for the pin of De Azevedo to have said feature.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, De Azevedo does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the inner and outer walls have a hole, which are aligned along a transverse axis between the first end and the at least one protruding blade, the at least one blocking member comprising a rod capable of passing through all the holes. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, absent Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify De Azevedo to have said features.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 16, De Azevedo discloses of a pin (1) comprising a metal body extending along a longitudinal insertion axis and having a first and a second end along the longitudinal insertion axis (see Annotated Fig. 1), an upper face and a lower face opposite the upper face (see Annotated Fig. 2); two convex portions each having an inclined inner wall and an inclined outer wall (see Annotated Fig. 3), the inclined inner and outer walls of each convex portion forming a ridge and extending along the longitudinal insertion axis (see Annotated Fig. 2-3), at least one ridge having on its lower face a protruding blade (13); a concave portion connecting the inclined inner wall of each convex portion via a central surface (see Annotated Fig. 2); and a blocking member (10, 11).
De Azevedo does not explicitly disclose wherein the pin is a part of a method of retaining two elements in a U-shaped rail, wherein the rail has a closed horizontal side, an open horizontal side, and two side walls extending opposite the closed side by a horizontal wall facing outward form the rail, with each side wall having an opening that face one another and extend in part along the horizontal wall, with each element having a through-passage located opposite the openings when the elements are in a retaining position within the rail, wherein each inner and outer wall of the pin has holes that are aligned along a transverse axis and arranged between the first end of the pin and the protruding blade, wherein the blocking member comprises a rod capable of passing through all of the holes, such that when the pin is inserted through the openings and the through passages, the protruding blade comes into forced contact with the elements, and the at least one blocking member is inserted into the holes to prevent removal of the pin.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, absent Applicant’s own disclosure to modify De Azevedo have the pin be used within the claimed method, nor have it comprise holes and a rod. While the pin of De Azevedo is configured to secure first and second parts (5, 8), it is not configured to be used with a U-shaped rail that is receivable through openings and through passages of rails and elements within the rail. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
