DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed December 11th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every Drawing Objection alongside each and every 112b and 102 Rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 16th, 2025 and are hereby withdrawn in light of their correction.
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) 1-3, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Darrow in view of itself (U.S. Pub. No. 20110265260).
Regarding claim 1, Darrow discloses (FIGS. 1, 2a, 2c, 18a, 18b, and 25) an overhead lift system (as illustrated in FIG. 1), comprising: a rail (as illustrated in FIG. 2a) having at least one wall (correspondent at least 35) that defines an inner channel (35; FIG. 2a) shaped and sized to guide movement of a carriage within the inner channel (as conveyed in FIGS. 1, 2a, and 25), the at least one wall comprising an upper wall (correspondent the protrusion ARY upper wall between 36-1 and 36-2) and further defining a longitudinal opening into the inner channel (37 as illustrated in FIG. 2a), the longitudinal opening located opposite the upper wall (as illustrated in FIG. 2a), extending along a length of the rail (as illustrated in FIG. 2a and 2c), and having a width (as illustrated in FIG. 2a); a carriage end stop (correspondent 167/165; FIG. 18a/b) having a body shaped and sized to correspond to the inner channel (as illustrated in FIG. 25) such that the body is insertable within the inner channel (as illustrated in FIG. 25); and a securement device (171; FIG. 18a) to securably tension the carriage end stop against the at least one wall of the rail to prevent movement of the carriage end stop within the inner channel (as illustrated in FIG. 25).
However, Darrow does not explicitly disclose the securement device contacting the upper wall to securably tension the carriage end stop against the at least one wall of the rail to prevent movement of the carriage end stop within the inner channel.
Regardless, Darrow discloses the claimed invention except for the securement device (the screw of Darrow) being long enough to contact the upper surface of wall. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have lengthened the fastener (171; FIG. 18a/18b) to contact the upper wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where the results would have been predictable as Darrow does actually contact the upper surface of the bumper plate 167 as illustrated eminently in FIG. 25, and where advantageously such a fastener would reduce torque forces impugned on the securement devices (screws) and thereby improve their longevity by abutting the upper wall.
Regarding claim 2, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein the rail comprises at least one end opening (as illustrated in FIG. 2a).
Regarding claim 3, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 2, wherein the body of the carriage end stop defines a first dimension that is less than the width of the longitudinal opening (as eminently demonstrated between FIGs. 18a/b and 25) and a second dimension that is greater than the width of the longitudinal opening (as illustrated between FIGS. 18a/b and 25).
Regarding claim 6, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one wall comprises a first rail wall and a second rail wall opposite and separated from one another by a rail width (correspondent side 19 and 21, FIG. 2a); and the body of the carriage end stop has a body width that corresponds in size to the rail width (as illustrated in FIG. 25).
Regarding claim 7, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein: the rail comprises a first support flange end face and a second support flange end face opposite and separated from one another by a support flange width (as illustrated in FIG. 2a and 25); and a portion of the body of the carriage end stop has a body width that corresponds in size to the support flange width (as illustrated between FIGS. 2a and 25).
Regarding claim 8, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, further comprising: a bumper (175; FIG. 18a/b) disposed on a lateral surface of the body of the carriage end stop (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b).
Regarding claim 9, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein at least one surface of the body of the carriage end stop comprises a gripping surface (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b, where [0076] “bumper 175 may be mounted on vertical portion 167 of bracket”).
Regarding claim 10, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein the securement device is a threaded bolt and the body of the carriage end stop defines a threaded bore that receives the threaded bolt (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b and 25).
Regarding claim 12, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein the rail is at least partially embedded within a ceiling of a facility (per claim 7, “being recessed within a ceiling”).
Regarding claim 13, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 1, 2a, 2c, 18a, 18b, and 25) the Regarding claim 13, Darrow discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) a device for an overhead lift system (as illustrated in FIG. 1), the device comprising: a carriage end stop (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b) comprising a body shaped and sized to correspond to an inner channel of a rail (as illustrated in FIG. 25) such that the body is insertable within the inner channel of the rail and movable in a longitudinal direction along the inner channel of the rail (as illustrated and conveyed in FIG. 25), wherein a first dimension of the body is less than a width of a longitudinal opening of the rail (as illustrated between FIG. 18a/b and 25, with longitudinal opening 37, FIG. 2a and 25) and a second dimension of the body is greater than the width of the longitudinal opening of the rail (as illustrated between FIGS. 18a/18b and 25 with 165 eminently thinner than 37 in 25), and wherein the rail further comprise s an upper wall located opposite the longitudinal opening (correspondent the protrusion ARY element between 36-a and 36-2 illustrated in FIG. 2a); and a securement device (171; FIGS. 18a/b) coupled to the body and extending from the body (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b), wherein the securement device securably tension the body against an inner surface of the rail and hold the body in place within the inner channel of the rail (as illustrated in FIG. 25).
However, Darrow does not explicitly disclose the securement device contacting the upper wall to securably tension the carriage end stop against the at least one wall of the rail to prevent movement of the carriage end stop within the inner channel.
Regardless, Darrow discloses the claimed invention except for the securement device (the bolt of Darrow) being long enough to contact the upper surface of wall. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have lengthened the fastener (171; FIG. 18a/18b) to contact the upper wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where the results would have been predictable as Darrow does actually contact the upper surface of the bumper plate 167 as illustrated eminently in FIG. 25, and where advantageously such a fastener would reduce torque forces impugned on the securement devices (screws) and thereby improve their longevity by abutting the upper wall.
Regarding claim 14, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the device according to claim 13, further comprising a bumper (175; FIG. 18a/b) disposed on a lateral surface of the body (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b).
Regarding claim 15, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the device according to claim 13, wherein at least one surface of the body comprises a gripping surface (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b, and as clarified in [0076]).
Regarding claim 16, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the device according to claim 13, wherein the securement device is a threaded bolt and the body of the carriage end stop defines a threaded bore that receives the threaded bolt (as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b and 25).
Regarding claim 18, Darrow discloses (FIGS. 1, 2a, 2c, 18a, 18b, and 25) a method for installing a device for stopping a carriage inside of a rail (as illustrated in FIG. 25), the method comprising: inserting a carriage end stop (correspondent 165/167 as illustrated in FIG. 18a/b) into an inner channel of the rail via a longitudinal opening in a wall of the rail (with carriage rail stop eminently inserted as illustrated in FIG. 2a), wherein the carriage end stop is sized to correspond to the inner channel (as illustrated in FIG. 25); and tensioning the carriage end stop against the inner channel of the rail using a securement device (as illustrated in FIG. 25).
However, Darrow does not explicitly disclose wherein the securement device contacts an upper wall positioned opposite the longitudinal opening in the wall of the rail.
Regardless, Darrow discloses the claimed invention except for the securement device (the bolt of Darrow) being long enough to contact the upper surface of wall. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have lengthened the fastener (171; FIG. 18a/18b) to contact the upper wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Where the results would have been predictable as Darrow does actually contact the upper surface of the bumper plate 167 as illustrated eminently in FIG. 25, and where advantageously such a fastener would reduce torque forces impugned on the securement devices (screws) and thereby improve their longevity by abutting the upper wall.
Where under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because the parts are assembled together there must inherently be an insertion of the end stops and securement thereof to properly restrain and use the apparatus.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being made obvious by Darrow in view of itself in further view of itself and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 11, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the overhead lift system according to claim 1, wherein the securement device has a tapered end.
However Darrow does not explicitly disclose wherein the securement device has a tapered end.
Regardless, Darrow discloses the claimed invention except for the end of the securement device being a tapered end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the end of the securement device being a tapered end since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalents of bolts and screw fasteners for their use in the rail and securement/fastening art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to fasten an element whether to abut would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Where bolts and screws are known to the art and so long as their thread pitch and length match are compatible/interchangeable.
Regarding claim 17, Darrow in view of itself discloses (FIGS. 2a, 18a, 18b, and 25) the device according to claim 13, wherein the securement device has a tapered end.
However Darrow does not explicitly disclose wherein the securement device has a tapered end.
Regardless, Darrow discloses the claimed invention except for the end of the securement device being a tapered end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have produced the end of the securement device being a tapered end since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalents of bolts and screw fasteners for their use in the rail and securement/fastening art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to fasten an element whether to abut would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Where bolts and screws are known to the art and so long as their thread pitch and length match are compatible/interchangeable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 6-8), filed December 11th, 2025, with respect to Drawing Objections alongside 112b Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections and 112b Rejections of September 16th, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, and 6-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly Darrow appears to propose much of the claimed invention and in view of itself appears to make obvious applicant’s invention as set forth previously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 19-20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims necessitate among other features the openings, the carriage stop members housed within the channel, and a plurality of indentations disposed on an upper end/surface of the channel that engages with the securement device (regarding claims 4 and 20), alongside the particular sequence of steps of inserting and rotating after insertion before securing to the adjoint structures (Claim 19). Additionally it is considered if the issues of claim 5 are corrected claim 5 would likewise be objected to as depending on a claimed subject matter previous objected to for posing indicated allowable subject matter (analogous subject matter posed for claims 4 and 20).
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.
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673