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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: stop means, resilient means in claim 1 and spring means in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the projecting portion" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: There are many similarities and dissimilarities between applicant’s invention and the invention of Petit et al. (US 2024/0034199). However, Petit fails to disclose a first blocking member and a second blocking member, mounted rigidly connected to the second slide element, with positions offset along a longitudinal axis of the rail, the first blocking member comprising a first wall and a second wall, facing one another, configured to rub on the first friction surface and second friction surface of the rail, respectively, the second blocking member comprising a third wall and a fourth wall, facing one another, configured to rub on the first friction surface and second friction surface, respectively, of the rail, and wherein the first slide element is a lower profile and the second slide element is an upper profile, slidably mounted along the lower profile, the first blocking member and the second blocking member extending internally into an interspace between the upper profile and the lower profile, the rail rigidly connected to the lower profile, accommodated in the interspace and in the first blocking member and the second blocking member protrude from the upper profile through at least one opening of the upper profile, wherein the system for locking by bracing comprises: - a stop means integral with the second slide element, extending above the upper profile, the stop means interposed between, on the one hand, a protruding portion of the first blocking member extending from a first opening of the upper profile, and on the other hand a protruding portion of the second blocking member extending from a second opening of the upper profile, and wherein the stop means comprising: -- a first stop surface facing the projecting portion of the first blocking member, defining with an opposite surface of the first blocking member a first slot with a profile converging along a vertical component, for example decreasing in width from bottom to top, -- a second stop surface facing the protruding portion of the second blocking member, defining with an opposite surface of the second blocking member a second slot with a profile converging along a vertical component, for example decreasing in width from bottom to top, -- a first wedging element extending in the first slot and first resilient means configured to move the first wedging element along the vertical component of the first slot to a first clamping position wherein the first wedging element is blocked by wedging effect against the first stop surface and the portion protruding from the first blocking member by generating a first force between the first blocking member and the first wedging element providing a bracing of the first blocking member on the rail providing a locking of the second slide element relative to the first slide element in a first sliding direction, by two reactions of the rail on the first blocking member, with on the one hand a first reaction between the first upper friction surface of the rail and the first wall of the first blocking member and, on the other hand, a second reaction between the second lower friction surface of the rail and the second wall of the first blocking member, - a second wedging element extending into the second slot and second resilient means configured to move the second wedging element along the vertical component of the second slot to a second clamping position wherein the second wedging element is blocked by wedging against the second stop surface and the portion projecting from the second blocking member, generating a second force between the second blocking member and the second wedging element providing a bracing of the second blocking member on the rail, locking the second slide element relative to the first slide element in a second sliding direction, by two reactions of the rail on the first blocking member, with, on the one hand, a third reaction between the first upper friction surface of the rail and the third wall of the second blocking member and, on the other hand, a fourth reaction between the second lower friction surface of the rail and the fourth wall of the second blocking member. No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2026/0021750).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights