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
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Random words within the claims are capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the securing mechanism for securing the rails to a corresponding roof ceiling must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the rails are connected to a roof ceiling or how the rails are connected together to form a matrix. The figures depict each rail, 201, as an individual unit, how do they form a matrix together as described in the specification? How are they connected or suspended from a roof ceiling? Claim 8 claims matrices in different vertical levels, what are the lower levels connected to? Claim 9 claims a lift trolley, lift platform, and buffer space. These features are not numbered nor clearly shown in the figures. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The gaps created by the conceptual illustrations and generic description of the elements in the specification fail to describe the invention to reasonably convey its possession. For example, a means for forming a matrix of individual rails, a means for supporting the matrix of rails on a roof ceiling, means for lifting a lift trolley, the jack means, and a means for automated travel, are insufficiently disclosed preventing a persons of ordinary skill in the art from recognizing that applicant has invented what is claimed.
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 2, 4, 7, 9, 10-15 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 2 recites the limitation "the corresponding roof ceiling of their floor" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lateral gap" in line 4, “the wheel pairs” in line 5, “the car” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said Transport cars” in line 1 and "the car" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lift" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lift shaft" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 recites the limitation "the lift trolleys" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, applicant claims a jack system with an upper jack portion which is above the top of the car and a lower jack portion below the bottom of the car. The applicant further claims that the upper jack portion is moved to touch the top of the rail while the lower jack portion touches the bottom of the rail. How does the upper jack move from above the car, through the car, and then to come into contact with the top of the rail, which is seemingly what is being claimed. How does the lower jack move from the bottom of the car, through the rail, and then to come into contact with the bottom of the rail, which is seemingly what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 16, and 17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malik (US 2014/0086714).
Regarding claim 1,Malik teaches a system for transportation of objects comprising:
one or more matrices of rails, see figure 2b and 114 and 122;
one or more transport vehicles, 200, which can move on the edges of the said matrices of rails;
wherein said transport vehicles are capable of carrying loads, see figures 15a-15f.
Regarding claim 3, Malik teaches the matrix of rails has a gap between adjacent rails and the said transport vehicles have a central wheel pair along with one or more wheel pairs in each half of the vehicle, see figures 11 and 12.
Regarding claim 6, Malik teaches the transport cars can turn their direction perpendicularly with respect to the said matrix of rails, see figures 11 and 12, the vehicle can travel in both the X and Y directions.
Regarding claim 8, Malik teaches the matrices of rails have each matrix at different vertical levels and these levels are connected with a lift apparatus which enables transportation across levels, see paragraphs 118 and 119.
Regarding claim 16, Malik teaches the system allows for movement from any point A to any Point B across a three-dimensional area and thus allowing full transportability of items across the entire area, see figures 15A-15F.
Regarding claim 17, Malik teaches the transport cars can have automatable travel and can be controlled electronically via wireless signals, see figure 22.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik (US 2014/0086714) in view of Ocado (WO 2022/048973).
Regarding claim 2, Malik does not teach the rails are supported by a ceiling. Ocado teaches a matrix of rails with transport vehicles traveling along the rails, where the matrix of rails can be supported by a ceiling, see page 9, lines 4+. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to support the matrix of rails of Malik by a ceiling, as taught by Ocado, in order to ensure the grid structure is level and not subject to shifts in the ground, see page 9.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik (US 2014/0086714) in view of Robin et al. (US 11,254,506).
Regarding claim 18, Malik does not teach a collision avoidance mechanism to ensure that no transport cars collide with each other during their movement on the matrices of rails. Collision avoidance mechanisms are well known in the art to prevent automatic robots from hitting each other during operation, as taught by Robin et al., see column 10, lines 17+. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sensors and collision avoidance system taught by Robin et al. with the vehicles of Malik in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling communication between vehicles to prevent the vehicle from hitting each other during operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9-15 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.
The prior art was not found to teach the connected bottom platform, as claimed in claim 1 or the jack system, as claimed in claim 7.
Claim 4, 7, 9, 11-15 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.
Currently claims 11-15 are dependent on claim 8, but the lift trolleys are not claimed until claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included to show the general state of the art and additional examples of matrix rails systems with transport vehicles carrying loads. The relied upon prior art is considered the best prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
6 October 2025