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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
For the claims in this application, it should be noted that "[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention. See also Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/25.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0009], lines 5-6 state the inner spring is configured to move the armature in the second linear direction which is unclear as later in the specification at [0043] the opposite is disclosed. That is, specifically at [0043], the last sentence states the inner spring 228 exerts a force on armature 230 away from cores 234,236 (in the negative Y-direction) where the “second linear direction” as set forth previously is the (positive Y-direction). Further explanation is requested.
At [0010], line 3 states the outer spring is configured to move the rod head in the second linear direction which is unclear as apparently the opposite is disclosed later in the specification. Specifically, at [0042], the outer spring 226 is said to exerts a first force on the first end 222a of reciprocating rod 222 to translate the reciprocating rod away from housing 221 (in the negative y-direction). This would necessarily likewise exert the same force on head 223 pushing head 223 in the negative y-direction where the second linear direction is set forth to be the positive y-direction. Here again further explanation is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 11/21/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: new limitations have been added to claim 8, namely that the head is configured to only partially retract into the ball panel and “to stay in connect with the cargo responsive to the head being in contact with the cargo” which finds no support in the disclosure as originally filed. The guide assembly 206 partially retracting is set forth in at least [0028-31] and again when discussing FIG.5C at [0049] but the particular language of the head staying “in contact with the cargo responsive to the head being in contact with the cargo” is not found.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/21/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 inner spring configured to move the armature in the second linear direction of claim 9; and the outer spring configured to move the rod head in the second linear direction of claim 10 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.
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 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 newly recites that the head only partially retracts and stays in contact with the cargo “responsive to the head being in contact with the cargo” which is indefinite and vague. That is, the phrasing that the head is “responsive” to the head is unclear. This language is not apparently repeated from the specification which does not shed light on what applicant intends to recite.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites that the inner spring is configured to move the armature in the second linear direction which is altogether unclear. Specifically, at [0043], the last sentence states that the inner spring 228 exerts a force on armature 230 away from cores 234,236 in the negative Y-direction which is the opposite of what is being recited in claim 9. Further explanation is requested.
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites that the outer spring is configured to move the rod head in the second linear direction (the positive y-direction) which contradicts what is disclosed in the specification and shown in the drawing figures.
Claims 9 and 10 will be examined as best understood where the recited second linear direction will be taken to be an error meant to recite the first linear direction in each instance.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaprakash et al. in view of Vogg et al. (4583896), Campbell (3616555), and further in view of Watts et al. (3709450).
For claim 8, Jayaprakash et al. (2018/0273177) disclose a cargo handling system, comprising:
a ball panel (not shown but disclosed, [0034], panel body) for moving and storing cargo, the ball panel having a top surface; and
an auxiliary guide assembly (10) disposed within the ball panel (in an interior; [0034]),
the auxiliary guide assembly including:
a head (30) configured to rotate in a first direction to extend above the top surface and rotate in a second direction to retract below the top surface,
the second direction being opposite the first direction;
a gear (63) and pinion (61) coupled to the head, the pinion causing the head to rotate in the first direction and the second direction; and
a motor (62) coupled to the gear (63), the motor causing the gear to move in a first rotational direction and a second rotational direction,
wherein the head rotates in the first direction in response to the gear moving in the first rotational direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jayaprakash et al. fail to disclose the head configured to rotate to only partially retract into the ball panel and to stay in contact with the cargo. This feature is well known from at least Vogg et al. (4583896) which teaches a retractable guide assembly having a head as disclosed. Specifically, Vogg et al. provides that on ‘normal’ operation when freight rolls over the locking dog, the articulating point will not pass the over center position but upon intentional and willful retraction of the locking member by forcing the actuator flap (19) down, the articulating point between the flap (19) and the bar (22) means will pass the over center position and the spring (18) will thereafter tend to maintain the actuator flap as well as the locking member which is forced to follow the fold down (FIG.4) motion of the bar means, in the position until pull up of the actuator flap (19) releases the structure. When released, the locking member is permitted under the influence of the spring (18) to again assume the upright position in which it locks any piece of cargo which acts against it in a direction opposite the direction of regular over rolling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have adapted the mechanism of Jayaprakash et al. to permit a partial retraction of the head thereof as taught by Vogg et al. in order to allow cargo to freely pass over guide assembly during cargo loading without causing a full retraction thereof.
Jayaprakash et al., as modified, fail to disclose the gear (63) being a rack and the motor being a solenoid as recited, both features taught by Campbell.
Campbell teaches a movement system by which painted indicia surfaces (20,22) are rotated. The movement system includes a rack (56) and pinion (18) coupled to the indicia surfaces, the pinion causing the surfaces to rotate in a first and second direction; and
a solenoid (28,30) magnetically coupled to the rack, the solenoid causing the rack to move in a first linear direction and a second linear direction,
wherein the surfaces (20,22) rotate in the first direction in response to the rack moving in the first linear direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
261
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Jayaprakash et al., as modified, to substitute a rack and solenoid as taught by Campbell in place of the gear and motor as an obvious expedient.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Jayaprakash et al., as twice modified above, fails to disclose the ball panel including a plurality of omni-directional rollers, known from the prior art of at least Watts et al. (Col 4, lines 30-33; Col 5, line 61 thru Col 6, line 6; and FIGS.12-13).
PNG
media_image3.png
343
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the ball panel of Jayaprakash et al., as twice modified, to include omni-directional rollers as taught by Watts et al. in order to assist in moving cargo in a plurality of directions.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaprakash et al., as modified above, in view of the well known prior art (such as S/Y Tusan).
For claim 9, as best understood, the auxiliary guide assembly further comprising:
a reciprocating rod (not shown but implicit in Campbell) see coupled to the rack, the reciprocating rod extending through the solenoid;
an armature (see 36,38 of Campbell) configured to engage the reciprocating rod,
the armature disposed adjacent the solenoid wherein the solenoid is configured to move the armature in the first linear direction in response to a first electric polarity.
Jayaprakash et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose an inner spring between the solenoid and armature configured to move the armature in the first linear direction.
However, the examiner takes official notice that solenoids of the well known prior art include internal (return) springs. See for example, FIG.36.12 illustrating a “Solenoid switch” of the S/Y TUSAN reference dated 2017 with the “return spring”.
PNG
media_image4.png
423
791
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the solenoid of Jayaprakash et al., as modified, with an inner spring as taught by the well known prior art in order to bias the armature and ‘return’ it to an original position.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
For claim 10, as best understood, the auxiliary guide assembly further comprising:
a rod head (see 40,42, header members of Campbell) coupled to the reciprocating rod; and
an outer spring (44,46) disposed between the rod head and the armature,
the outer spring (44,46) configured to move the rod head in the first linear direction.
For claim 13, the rack (see Campbell 56) moves in the second linear direction in response to the head rotating in the second direction.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaprakash et al., as modified above, in view of Burton (4660010).
For claim 11, Jayaprakash et al., as modified, is silent on the assembly further comprising a ring magnet. Specifically, the teaching reference of Campbell does not explicitly state the type of solenoid being a latching or bi/stable solenoid that can hold its position in the absence of an electric polarity and therefore lacks a permanent ring magnet as recited.
Burton teaches the use and desirability of such a latching solenoid and specifically provides the permanent magnet being a ring magnet (78 in FIG.1; see also claim 9 of Burton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided for use with the solenoid of Jayaprakash et al., as modified, a permanent ring magnet as taught by Burton in order to allow the solenoid to be able to latch or stay in position (to hold the armature) without the need for electricity.
For claim 12, Jayaprakash et al., as modified above, discloses the solenoid configured to move the armature in the second linear direction in response to a second electric polarity that is opposite the first electric polarity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the drawing and specification objections and the 112 rejections, applicant has attempted to explain that the second linear direction is the negative Y-direction. However, it is apparent that what is being described and claimed amounts to both the first linear direction and the second linear direction representing the negative Y-direction.
To further illustrate, claim 8 recites the head is rotated in a first direction to extend above the top surface. As seen in FIGS. 5A-C, the rotation of the head is either clockwise or counter clockwise and in order for the head to “extend above” a top surface, it needs to be rotated in the counterclockwise direction (CCW).
Claim 8 then continues with the recitation that the solenoid causes the rack to move in a first linear direction and a second linear direction. A PHOSITA understands that these would not be the same direction. To recite two distinct directions representing the exact same thing (the negative Y direction) would be unclear. If applicant intends for both directions to represent the negative Y direction, please state this in the next response. Assuming the directions are different and distinct, one linear direction would presumably be in either the positive or negative Y direction and the other linear direction would be opposite.
Claim 8 further recites wherein “the head rotates in the first direction” (established to be the counterclockwise direction) in response to the rack moving in the first linear direction. As seen in FIGS.5A-C, in order for the head to move in the CCW direction, the rack necessarily needs to move in the negative Y-direction. That makes the “first linear direction” the negative Y-direction.
When claim 9 recites that the inner spring is configured to move the armature in the second linear direction, it would be apparent from what was previously recited that the second linear direction then becomes the positive Y-direction. But as applicant has set forth in the remarks the second linear direction is meant to represent the negative Y-direction. Therefore, there is an indefiniteness and disconnect with what is being recited. Applicant’s response is not persuasive to overcome the objections and rejections, which are hereby maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights