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 .
Applicant’s RCE included a request for interview. Examiner called Attorney on 3/11/26. Examiner was unable to conduct interview with Attorney within timelines to complete case. Attorney is welcome to schedule interview after reviewing office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Downing (Patent No. 8,979,451).
Re: claim 11, Downing teaches a foot assembly, comprising: a first plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – first plate 721) comprising a first L-shaped portion (Annotated Fig. 7 – first L-shaped portion) configured to engage a track (See Fig. 8); a second plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – second plate 722) comprising a second L-shaped portion (Annotated Fig. 7 – second L-shaped portion) disposed opposite the first L-shaped portion (See Annotated Fig. 7) and configured to engage the track (See Fig. 8), the second plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – second plate 722) connected to the first plate such that a void is disposed between the first and second plates (Annotated Fig. 7 – void 72v); at least one tooth (Fig. 8 – 76) extending through the void (Annotated Fig. 7 – 72v) and configured to engage the track (See Fig. 8); a power balancer assembly (Fig. 7 - spring 82, body of stop 76) at least partially disposed within the void (See Fig. 6 & 7 for spring and body of stop in the void); and a release assembly (Fig. 10 – release shaft 130, shaft 122, lever 108, latch 120, bolt 134)(Fig. 9 – pulley housing 104, bore 116, cable 47)(Fig. 8 – pulley sheave 78, pin 80) at least partially disposed within the void (See Fig. 8), the release assembly is configured to switch the respective foot assembly from the locked state to the unlocked state (Col. 4 – lines 4-8), wherein the release assembly (Fig. 10 – release shaft 130, shaft 122, lever 108, latch 120, bolt 134)(Fig. 9 – pulley housing 104, bore 116, cable 47)(Fig. 8 – pulley sheave 78, pin 80) comprises a locking lug (Fig. 10 – shaft 122, latch 120 – connected to cable 47) configured to move relative to the power balancer assembly between a first position corresponding to a locked state of the foot assembly and a second position corresponding to an unlocked state of the foot assembly (Col. 4 – line 49 to Col. 5 – line 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 12, Downing teaches wherein the foot assembly (Fig. 1 – foot assemblies 24) is configured to selectively move (Abstract – lines 2-4) (Col. 6 – From Claim 11 – lines 26-29) along the track (Fig. 1 & 8 – track 26).
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(s) 1-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downing (Patent No. 8,979,451).
Re: claim 1, Downing teaches a system comprising: a track (Fig. 1 – track 26); a beam (Fig. 1 – beam assembly 22); and a first and a second foot assembly (Fig. 1 – foot assemblies 24) connected to the beam and configured to move along the track (Col. 6 – From Claim 11 – lines 26-29), each assembly including a tooth (Fig. 6 - 76) operable to engage the track (26); wherein the beam and the first and second foot assembles are configured to move relative to the track when the first and second foot assembles are in an unlocked state (Col. 4 – lines 28-36); the beam is positioned perpendicular relative to the track when the first and second foot assembles are in a locked state (See Fig. 1). Downing does not expressly disclose wherein the beam is in a position that is not perpendicular relative to the track when the first and second foot assembles are in the unlocked state. Downing fails to teach each assembly including a plurality of teeth that are operable to engage the track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Downing to have the foot assemblies be in an unlocked state when the beam is not perpendicular relative to the track since Downing discloses in Col. 4 – lines 4-8 that tension applied to the cable unlocks the foot from the track allowing movement of the other side of the beam. Downing’s art is of a self-leveling beam, where when the first side is disengaged from a perpendicular position and moved upward/downwards, the tension of the cable unlocks and the beam moves into an even position.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 2, Downing teaches wherein the first foot assembly is at least partially disposed within a first terminal end (See Fig. 1 – Circled portion 2, then see Fig. 2 – foot assembly (24) is disposed in sheath (78) of the beam assembly (22)) of the beam and the second foot assembly is at least partially disposed within a second terminal end (See Fig. 1 – Arrow A, then Fig. 8 – foot assembly (24) is disposed in the beam channel (88) of the beam assembly (22)) of the beam.
Re: claim 3, Downing fails to explicitly teach wherein the beam is positioned approximately 10-80 or 100-170 degrees relative to the track when the first and second foot assembles are in the unlocked state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Downing to have an angle between 10-80 or between 100-170 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Downing would not operate differently with the angle and since the second side of the beam is to unlock from the cable being tensioned when the beam is not perpendicular the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0044]).
Re: claim 4, Downing teaches wherein the beam is configured to support cargo (Col. 2 – lines 30-32); and the system includes one or more external components configured to prevent the cargo from moving relative to the beam (Col. 1 – lines 26-29).
Re: claim 5, Downing teaches wherein the first and second foot assembles (Fig. 1 – foot assemblies 24) each include: a first plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – first plate 721); a second plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – second plate 722) connected to the first plate such that a void is disposed between the first and second plates (Annotated Fig. 7 – void 72v); a power balancer assembly (Fig. 7 - spring 82, body of stop 76) at least partially disposed within the void (See Fig. 6 & 7 for spring and stop in the void), the power balancer assembly is configured to bias the respective foot assembly into the locked state (Col. 2 – lines 36-38); and a release assembly (Fig. 10 – release shaft 130, shaft 122, lever 108, latch 120, bolt 134)(Fig. 9 – pulley housing 104, bore 116, cable 47)(Fig. 8 – pulley sheave 78, pin 80) at least partially disposed within the void (See Fig. 8), the release assembly is configured to switch the respective foot assembly from the locked state to the unlocked state (Col. 4 – lines 4-8).
Re: claim 18, Downing fails to teach further comprising a second beam connectable to a second track.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 13-17, and 21-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 6, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least the first foot assembly comprising a first cylindrical body and a first plurality of teeth configured to engage and disengage a first track and the second foot assembly comprising a second cylindrical body and a second plurality of teeth configured to engage and disengage a second track.
Re: claim 21, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach the power balancer includes: a spring case, a spring case cover, a spring case cover clip, a drive rod retention stop, and a drive rod bushing.
Re: claim 22, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach the release assembly includes: a locking lug spring and a spring retainer plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 toward amended claims 1-5, 11-12, and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re: claims 1-5 and 18, the applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach a plurality of teeth configured to engage a track. While the examiner acknowledges that Downing is silent on a plurality of teeth, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In view of the current prior art, the foot assembly would be able to incorporate at the very least a second tooth configured to engage the track without destroying the current prior art.
Re: claims 11 and 12, the applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the amended limitations. The examiner disagrees in that Downing teaches a first plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – first plate 721) comprising a first L-shaped portion (Annotated Fig. 7 – first L-shaped portion) configured to engage a track (See Fig. 8); a second plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – second plate 722) comprising a second L-shaped portion (Annotated Fig. 7 – second L-shaped portion) disposed opposite the first L-shaped portion (See Annotated Fig. 7) and configured to engage the track (See Fig. 8), the second plate (Annotated Fig. 7 – second plate 722) connected to the first plate such that a void is disposed between the first and second plates (Annotated Fig. 7 – void 72v); at least one tooth (Fig. 8 – 76) extending through the void (Annotated Fig. 7 – 72v) and configured to engage the track (See Fig. 8). The applicant also argues that the stop of the prior art acts as a plunger to engage the track instead of the recited at least one tooth extending through the void. The examiner disagrees with this as the stop, cited as a tooth, extends through the annotated void of Annotated Fig. 7 in order to engage the track.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612