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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2024, 02/19/2024 and 05/02/2024, was/were filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 1-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malinowski (WO2022034190A1, hereinafter referred to as “Malinowski”).
Regarding claim 1, Malinowski discloses a rail for a rack of a rack storage system (Figs 1, 3, 6, 12, 14, storage system or fulfillment system with grid framework and tracks) of the kind that includes a rack upright (Fig 12, upright members 16), wherein: the rail extends along a longitudinal axis (Fig 15, tracks 124 and 125 combined); the rail has a cross-sectional profile with at least three legs (Figs 15 and 17 combined, legs are 132, 124/125, and 148), such that: a first leg of the at least three legs is a running surface leg (Fig 15, running surface (132)) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a running surface for a storage machine (Fig 24, Bot 1, Bot 2, alternatively, Fig 4, storage machine (32)) and at each point along the rail, a transverse axis extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at the point and parallel to the running surface (Figs 16 and 18 and 24), a second leg (Fig 15, 124/125) of the at least three legs is a guiding surface leg which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a guiding surface (Figs 15 and 18 and 24), and a third leg (Fig 17, 148) of the at least three legs is a rack upright leg (Fig 18) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a mounting surface for the rack upright (Figs 16 and 20); and the running surface leg is cut at a first front face edge of the rail by a first sectional plane (Fig 15, 132 cut at edge 126, 146 and 140), the first sectional plane being pivoted a non-zero angle (Fig 15(b), pivot at non-zero angle), relative to the transverse axis (Fig 15), about a surface normal of the running surface (Fig 15).
Regarding claim 2, Malinowski discloses wherein: the first sectional plane is parallel to the surface normal of the running surface (Fig 15, a first section plane at gap at joint 128, parallel to surface perpendicular/normal to surface 132) or the first sectional plane is pivoted about the transverse axis (note: “or” in above limitation indicates part of limitation “the first sectional plane is pivoted about the transverse axis” being deemed optional feature, which can be omitted).
Regarding claim 3, Malinowski discloses wherein: the first sectional plane is pivoted by 30° to 60° about the surface normal of the running surface (Fig 15(b), slanted angle of 126 formed plane appears to be between 30° to 60°) and/or the first sectional plane is pivoted by 30° to 60° about the transverse axis (note: “or” in “and/or” in above limitation indicates part of limitation being deemed optional feature, which can be omitted).
Regarding claim 4, Malinowski discloses wherein the guiding surface leg is cut at a second front face edge of the rail by a second sectional plane (Fig 15(a), 124 cut at edge 126 of track at plane at 128 of Fig 15(b)), the second sectional plane being pivoted about the transverse axis (Fig 15).
Regarding claim 5, Malinowski discloses wherein: the second sectional plane is parallel to the transverse axis or the second sectional plane is pivoted about the surface normal of the running surface (note: “or” in above limitation indicates part of limitation “the second sectional plane is parallel to the transverse axis” being deemed optional feature, which can be omitted; Fig 15, edge plane at 124 pivoted about surface at edge 126 normal to surface 132).
Regarding claim 6, Malinowski discloses wherein: the second sectional plane is pivoted by 30° to 60° about the surface normal of the running surface and/or the second sectional plane is pivoted by 30° to 60° about the transverse axis (page 23, lines 18-20; note: “or” in “and/or” in above limitation indicates part of limitation being deemed optional feature, which can be omitted).
Regarding claim 7, Malinowski discloses wherein the first and second sectional planes are identical. (note: planes along edge 126 for both 124 and 132 share the same flatness, thus are identical in surface flatness).
Regarding claim 8, Malinowski discloses wherein the rack upright leg (Figures 16 and 20) is cut at a third front face edge of the rail (118, 120) by a third sectional plane (Figure 21), such that a surface (158) normal of the third sectional plane is parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig 20).
Regarding claim 9, Malinowski discloses wherein the first, second and third sectional planes are parallel to one another (Figures 16 and 18).
Regarding claim 10, Malinowski discloses wherein the first and second section planes are parallel to one another (Figure 15).
Regarding claim 11, Malinowski discloses wherein: the third leg comprises an L-shape such that a first portion of the third leg runs essentially parallel to the running surface and/or (note: “or” in “and/or” in above limitation indicates part of limitation “the third leg comprises an L-shape such that a first portion of the third leg runs essentially parallel to the running surface” being deemed optional feature, which can be omitted) the third leg comprises a U-shape such that a first portion of the third leg runs essentially parallel to the running surface and a second portion of the third leg runs essentially parallel to the mounting surface (Fig 17, third leg (148) is U-shaped, such that top part of third leg (148) runs parallel to running surface 132 in Fig 15, and side part of third leg (148) runs parallel to mounting surface of 16 in Fig 14)).
Regarding claim 12, Malinowski discloses a rack storage system (Figs 1, 3, 6, 12, 14, storage system or fulfillment system with grid framework and tracks) comprising: a first rail that: extends along a longitudinal axis (Fig 15, track 124), has a cross-sectional profile with at least three legs (Figs 15 and 17 combined, legs are 132, 124, and 148), such that: a first leg of the at least three legs is a running surface leg (Fig 15, running surface (132)) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a running surface for a storage machine (Fig 24, Bot 1, Bot 2; alternatively, Fig 4, storage machine (32)) and at each point along the rail, a transverse axis extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at the point and parallel to the running surface (Figs 16 and 18 and 24), a second leg (Fig 15, 124) of the at least three legs is a guiding surface leg which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a guiding surface (Figs 15 and 18 and 24), and a third leg (Fig 17, 148) of the at least three legs is a rack upright leg (Fig 18) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a mounting surface for a rack upright (Figs 16 and 20); and the running surface leg is cut at a first front face edge of the rail by a first sectional plane (Fig 15, 132 cut at edge 126, 146 and 140), the first sectional plane being pivoted (Fig 15(b), pivot at an angle), relative to the transverse axis, about a surface normal of the running surface (Fig 15), and a second rail that: extends along a longitudinal axis (Fig 15, track 125), has a cross-sectional profile with at least three legs (Figs 15 and 17 combined, legs are 132, 124, and 148), such that: a first leg of the at least three legs is a running surface leg (Fig 15, running surface (132)) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a running surface for a storage machine (Fig 24, Bot 1, Bot 2; alternatively, Fig 4, storage machine (32)) and at each point along the rail, a transverse axis extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at the point and parallel to the running surface (Figs 16 and 18 and 24), a second leg (Fig 15, 124) of the at least three legs is a guiding surface leg which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a guiding surface (Figs 15, 18 and 24), and a third leg (Fig 17, 148) of the at least three legs is a rack upright leg (Fig 18) which, together with the longitudinal axis of the rail, spans a mounting surface for a rack upright (Figs 16 and 20); and the running surface leg is cut at a first front face edge of the rail by a first sectional plane (Fig 15, 132 cut at edge 126, 146 and 140), the first sectional plane being pivoted (Fig 15(b), pivot at an angle), relative to the transverse axis, about a surface normal of the running surface (Fig 15); wherein: the first and second rails run in the longitudinal direction in a common rack plane and are arranged with their respective front face edges abutting each other such that the respective sectional planes of the first and second rails are substantially parallel to each other (Fig 15(b)).
Regarding claim 15, Malinowski discloses further comprising: another first rail disposed in the common rack plane as, parallel to, and spaced in the transverse direction apart from the first rail (Fig 14), wherein the first rail and the other first rail collectively form a rail segment of an aisle (Fig 24).
Regarding claim 16, Malinowski discloses further comprising: a plurality of rail segments running in a common rack plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rack plane (Fig 14) and/or a plurality of rail segments running in a common rack plane transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rack plane (Fig 14) and/or at least one rail segment that runs at a non-zero angle to the rack plane and connects two rack planes which are offset vertically relative to one another (note: “or” in “and/or” in multiple instances in above limitation indicates parts of limitation can be being deemed optional feature, such as at least one rail segment that runs at a non-zero angle to the rack plane and connects two rack planes which are offset vertically relative to one another, which can be omitted).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malinowski (WO2022034190A1, hereinafter referred to as “Malinowski”).
Regarding claim 13, Malinowski discloses comprising: a plurality of first rails and a plurality of second rails (Figs 11-12, 14 and 24), each first rail being adjacent a respective second rail to form a respective pair of adjacent first and second rails (Figs 14 and 24, multiple parallel pairs of rails in two perpendicular directions), each pair of adjacent first and second rails running in the longitudinal direction in a common rack plane and being arranged with their respective front face edges abutting each other such that: the respective sectional planes of the respective first and second rails are substantially parallel to each other (Fig 15(b)); and a distance between their respective front face edges is less than 20 mm (Fig 15(b), distance of gap at 128 appears to be less than 20 mm in comparison to 148 shown).
Regarding claim 14, Malinowski discloses wherein the distance between their respective front face edges is less than or equal to 12 mm (Fig 15(b), distance of gap at 128 appears to be less than 12 mm in comparison to 148 shown).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malinowski to arrive at the adjacent first and second rails distance between their respective front face edges being less than 12 mm and less than 20 mm, respectively, based on the following rationales: Fig 15(b) of Malinowski shows a gap at 128 being relatively narrow or small in distance in comparison with size of 148 being shown. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.04(IV) addresses changes in size, proportion, or shape in patentability. It states that if the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device unless it produces a new and unexpected result or solves a specific problem in a non-obvious way. Legal precedents, such as Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., support this, indicating that changes in size or proportion are generally not patentable unless they lead to a significant improvement. As best understood by Examiner, upon careful review of instant disclosure adjacent first and second rails distance between their respective front face edges being less than 12 mm does not produce a new and unexpected result or solves a specific problem in a non-obvious way, thereby indicating that changes in size or proportion of gap with front face edges being less than 12 mm not patentable. Furthermore, referring to MPEP 2144.05, which recites in part: “II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION A .Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gunter Becker (DE 102008031153B4) discloses a rail system having a rail joint gap in between rail segments to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Milward (US 12428226B2) discloses a track assembly for a storage system. Miller (US 2193409) disclose a slanted rail joint for monorail systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 am MT--5:00 pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632