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 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 (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 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horompo (US 3,468,264) in view of Dunbar (US 4,425,071) and Phillips (US 1,752,026).
Interpretative note 1. Applicants specification discloses that a driving rail is defined as a rail on which driven wheel or roller is self-propelled therealong.
With respect to claim 1, Horompo discloses a ceiling storage system comprising:
a first support track/rail 17 and a second support rail 16 that extend in a first direction;
a first track/rail 16 that extends in a first direction and is parallel to a first and second support rails;
a second track/rail 18 movably coupled to a first support rail, a second support rail, and a first driving rail, wherein a second driving rail is configured to move along a first support rail, a second support rail, and a first driving rail;
a transfer vehicle 32 movably coupled to a second driving rail 12, 14 and configured to move along a second driving rail 12, 14; and
a connection device 20 that connects a first driving rail 16 and a second driving rail 12 to each other.
Horompo discloses tracks, e.g. rails, and does not explicitly propulsion means. Nor does Horompo disclose a driving rail or that a connection device and a second driving rail are rotatable around a first axis that is parallel to a first direction.
Dunbar discloses a rail
a first support rail 9 (see FIG. 1 and undriven rollers 21) and a second support rail 9 that extend in a first direction;
a first driving rail 17 that extends in a first direction and is parallel to a first and second support rails;
a second driving rail 47 (FIG. 5) movably coupled to a first support rail, a second support rail, and a first driving rail, wherein a second driving rail is configured to move along a first support rail via motor 87, a second support rail, and a first driving rail;
a transfer vehicle 32 movably coupled to a second driving rail 47 and configured to move along a second driving rail; and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Horompo to include a first driving rail as defined by Applicant, as taught by Dunbar, which provides for enhanced clearance directly under the storage system by providing a telescoping carriage mechanism.
And, McKay discloses a first driving rail 19 and a connection device 40 that connects a first driving rail 19 and a second driving rail 50 (FIG. 2) to each other, wherein a connection device 40, 52, 54 and a second driving rail 50 are rotatable around a first axis (see pivot axis of #52, 54) that is parallel to a first direction (indicated generally as direction of rail 19). McKay teaches that during initial movement of an overhead or bridge crane the bridge has a tendency to twist relative to the stationary guides, e.g. tracks/rails. Also, McKay recognizes that "another problem with existing assemblies is the fact that the guides must be aligned parallel or very close to parallel during installation. If not, the bridge tends to jam in the guides preventing further movement."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Horompo to include a connection device and a second driving rail are rotatable around a first axis that is parallel to a first direction, McKay, to account for bridge jaw at initial movement and out-of-parallel of support and driving rails.
Claim(s) 8 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horompo in view of Dunbar and Phillips and further in view of Oza (US 2016/0126120)
With respect to claim 8, lines 3-16, the recited structure is identical to that in claim 1. Attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Horompo, Dunbar and Phillips. Horompo does not disclose an overhead rack or a grip unit. Oza discloses an overhead bridge crane assembly similar to that of Horompo in combination with an overhead rack 360. Oza further discloses a grip unit 320. Oza teaches that overhead storage systems that add an overhead rack facilitate storing during processing hundreds of different product types. Those product types may require a specific process flow and different production materials used in coordination. An overhead maximizes production efficiency and minimizes production costs by coordinating process flow with manufacturing environment by ensuring a high degree of tool utilization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Horompo to use an overhead storage system in combination with an overhead rack, as taught by Oza, which maximizes production efficiency and minimizes production costs by coordinating process flow with manufacturing environment by ensuring a high degree of tool utilization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652