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 .
The amendment filled 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-5, 10-20, 22-23 and 26 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 24 and 31-32 have been amended. Applicant added new claims 34-37. Therefore, claims 1, 6-9, 21, 24-25 and 27-37 remain pending in the application.
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 “the first flange of each first rail comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion” claim 1 and “the web comprises a first portion and a second portion” claim 37 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 Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “each of the first flanges defines a bulbous portion”; objection of this language arises because it appears that applicant is claiming the same element using two different nomenclature and implying that they are two different limitations, where claim 1 recites “the first flange of each second rail comprises an enlarged portion”, claim 24 recites “the first flanges defines a bulbous portion”, it is submitted that per the disclosure including the drawings, it appears that the “enlarged portion” and “bulbous portion” are one and the same element.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 6-9, 21, 24-25 and 27-37 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 1 recites “the first flange of each first rail comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion”; in addition to the lack of illustration of the above limitation, it is also submitted that the recitation is indefinite, since it is also not understood how flanges such as (620, 630) shown in fig 6 can be made of two separate portion and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion. It is submitted that such design/structure cannot be merely appreciated or predicable as to how it would look or function, it is also submitted that this is not a known structure in the art where applicant may not need to show the details of. In fact, as shown in fig. 6 of the current invention, flanges 620, 630 appear to be part of the shape similar to a conventional I-beam i.e. two flanges and a web (such as 610 of the current invention). Note that the statement in the specification reproduced below, is not shown, and the numerals used in paragraph [0088] are not reflected in any of the drawings i.e. 2610, 2620, 2630.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To best expedite prosecution, the above recitation of claim 1 will be examined as best understood, i.e., that the two portions of the T-shape are the 1st and 2nd portions that are joined by the web (which is as best interpretated per the illustration of fig. 6 despite the lack of numerals referenced in the description).
Claim 37 recites “the web comprises a first portion and a second portion”; similar to above, indefiniteness arises due to the lack of understanding of the structure claimed, where in addition to the lack of illustration, it is also not understood how a web such as (610) shown in fig. 6 can be made of two separate portion which would introduce a weakness in the structure. Such design/structure cannot be merely appreciated or predicable as to how it would look or function, such structure is not a known structure in the art. Currently, claim 37 is only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, pending applicant’s clarification.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 21, 24-25, 27-28 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redman, US (3343630) in view of Delaney, US (2019/0233266).
In regards to claim 1 Redman discloses:
A track assembly (L; figs. 1-6) comprising:
a first track member (20);
a second track member (40) coupled to the first track member (as shown in figs. 4-6), each of the first track member and the second track member comprising:
a first rail (respective right-hand side 21 and 41 of the first and second track members 20 & 40 respectively as shown in figs. 2 & 3); and
a second rail (respective left-hand side 21 and 41 of the first and second track members 20 & 40 respectively as shown in figs. 2 & 3), each of the first rail and the second rail defining a first end (respective top ends) and a second end (respective bottom ends) distal from the first end (figs. 1-6);
wherein:
a first flange (24; fig. 11, 12) of the first rail of the first track member (20) is in facing contact (as shown in figs. 11, 12) with a first flange (44; fig. 11, 12) of the first rail of the second track member (40);
a first flange of the second rail of the first track member is in facing contact with a first flange of the second rail of the second track member (for the other rail of each track member facing each other per figs. 4-6; and in the same manner as for the flanges shown in figs. 11, 12);
an overall length of the track assembly is adjustable (for instance between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6), the second track member configured to move with respect to the first track member (as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below) to adjust the overall length (between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6; and as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below); and
the track assembly is configured to slideably receive a carriage assembly configured to support a load (where the design/structure of rails 21s and 41s of the first and second track members configures them to slideably receive a carriage assembly configured to support a load; note that a carriage assembly is not positively recited/required by the claim);
the first flange of each first rail comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion (as best understood; see drawings and 112 issues above; where the two legs of the flange are considered the two portions are separated/joined by middle web 23); and
the first flange of each second rail comprises an enlarged portion (similar to 25 on the second rail; enlarged where it exhibits a thickness larger than that of the rest of the flange see fig. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
277
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
762
209
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
448
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Redman does not disclose a guide assembly configured to guide passage of a flexible connecting element.
Delaney teaches a guide assembly (300; fig. 3A) configured to guide passage of a flexible connecting element therethrough (“through or over which a cable may be looped”; as described in paragraph [0050]), the flexible connecting element configured to attach to the carriage assembly (“through or over which a cable may be looped and attached to the carriage 200”; as described in paragraph [0050]; a non-positively recited intended use limitation further limiting another non-positively recited intended use limitation), the guide assembly comprising a base (see annotated drawings) and a guide (304) connected to the base (as shown in fig. 3A; reproduced below), the base secured to one of the first rails and one of the second rails (as shown in figs. 6A and 6B) at a top end of the track assembly (as shown in figs. 6A and 6B); wherein: the base comprises a first panel (see annotated drawings) and a second panel (see annotated drawings); each of the first panel and the second panel extend between the one of the first rails and the one of the second rails (as shown in figs. 6A & 6B); and the second panel is angled with respect to the first panel (as shown in fig. 3A; in the same manner as in the current invention).
PNG
media_image7.png
298
656
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
441
755
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the guide assembly taught by Delaney onto the track assembly of Redman for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means of a rope and pulley arrangement to easily extend the second track member with respect to the first rack member while the user is standing on the ground level prior to climbing the ladder.
In regards to claim 6 Redman discloses the rails of at least one of the first track member and the second track member are curved when viewed from the side (curved at the enlarged portion; as shown in annotated fig. 12 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
652
540
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 21 Redman discloses the second track member (40) is configured to slide with respect to the first track member (20) to adjust the overall length (as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted below).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 24 Redman discloses each of the first flanges defines a bulbous portion (25; fig. 11; as shown in annotated drawings below), the bulbous portion defining a radius (as shown in annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image10.png
168
436
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 25 Delaney teaches the base of the guide assembly is non- planar (being bent at the top apex; fig. 3A in the same manner as in the current invention).
In regards to claim 27 Delaney teaches each of the first panel and the second panel are substantially flat (as shown in fig. 3A; in the same manner as in the current invention).
In regards to claim 28 Delaney teaches the base further defines a bend line between the first panel and the second panel (see annotated drawings).
PNG
media_image11.png
441
755
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 34 Redman discloses the first flange of each first rail comprises an enlarged portion (25; enlarged where it exhibits a thickness larger than that of the rest of the flange see fig. 11).
Claims 7-9 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redman and Delaney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elrod, US (6533070).
In regards to claim 7 Redman discloses:
A material hoist system (fig. 1-6) comprising the track assembly of claim 1 (as detailed in claim 1 above).
In regards to claim 7 Redman and Delaney do not teach a drive assembly configured to wind and unwind a flexible connecting element attached to a carriage assembly.
Elrod teaches a drive assembly (410A; fig. 7; reproduced below) configured to wind and unwind the flexible connecting element (402A; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
646
487
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the drive and carriage assemblies taught by Elrod onto the track assembly of Redman which is similar to the track assembly of Elrod; (hence the assemblies would be added in a known similar manner to their application in the Elrod reference) for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for a lifting system to assist in elevating tools, equipment, other heavy weight materials to elevated surfaces/platforms for use by a worker without said worker needing to climb the ladder carrying said equipment which would compromise user’s safety. One of ordinary skill in the art would look for apparatuses to enhance ease and safety of users/workers at a work site.
In regards to claim 8 Elrod teaches the drive assembly (410A) is fixed in a stationary position on the track assembly (410A described as mounted on base plate 190) and is configured to not move during operation of the material hoist system (fig. 7).
In regards to claim 9 Elrod teaches the material hoist system of claim 7, further comprising the carriage assembly (10/20), wherein the carriage assembly comprises a moving element (97A, 97B; fig. 4), and wherein the moving element is configured to align with the enlarged portion of the first flange of the second rail (as shown in fig. 4, Elrod once taught onto the flange of Redman and in the same manner rollers 97A and 97B rides on the outer surface of the edge of the rail of legs 110, 120 of track 100).
In regards to claim 35 Elrod teaches the carriage assembly (10/20), wherein the carriage assembly comprises a plurality of moving elements (97A, 97B; fig. 4), and wherein a first moving element (97A) of the plurality of moving elements is configured to align with the enlarged portion of the first flange of the second rail (as shown in fig. 4, Elrod once taught onto the flange of Redman and in the same manner roller 97A rides on the outer surface of the edge of the rail of leg 110 of track 100) and a second moving element (97B) of the plurality of moving elements is configured to align with the enlarged portion of the first flange of the first rail (as shown in fig. 4, Elrod once taught onto the flange of Redman and in the same manner roller 97B rides on the outer surface of the edge of the rail of leg 120 of track 100).
In regards to claim 36 Redman as modified by Elrod teaches the second track member is configured to slide with respect to the first track member to adjust the overall length (between length shown in fig. 5 versus the length shown in fig. 6; and as described in Col 2; LL 14-22; excerpt highlighted above); and the carriage assembly engages the track assembly and remains slidably engaged with the rack assembly while the second track member is in an extended position (once the carriage is taught onto the first track 20 it will remain slidably engaged with the track assembly L in the extended position).
Claims 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redman and Delaney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dockter, US (6269906).
In regards to claims 29-33 Delaney discloses a guide flange (see annotated drawings below) and a side flange (see annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image13.png
298
456
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 29-33 Redman and Delaney do not teach the guide defines a tab, the base defines a tab opening, and the tab engages the tab opening, the tab opening is a guide tab opening; the flange is a guide flange and the tab is a guide tab engaging the guide tab opening; the base further defines a side opening; the guide further comprises a side flange; and the side flange comprises a side tab engaging the side opening.
Dockter teaches guide (10; Fig. 2A) defines a tab (13, 14; fig. 2A), the base (frame 23) defines a tab opening (30, 31; fig. 3), and the tab engages the tab opening (fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the tab and opening/slot arrangement taught by Dockter to attach the guide and side flanges of Delaney to the base, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for easy means for attaching and detaching the cable guide to the base for replacement, repair, cleaning, or maintenance.
In regards to claim 30 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the guide comprises a flange (guide flange shown in annotated drawings above), and wherein the flange comprises the tab (tab 13, 14; Dockter).
In regards to claim 31 Delaney teaches the flange of the guide is flat (fig. 3A).
In regards to claim 32 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the tab opening (30 or 31) is a guide tab opening (once taught onto base of Delaney); the flange is a guide flange (see guide flange in annotated drawings above) and the tab is a guide tab (one of the tabs taught onto the guide flange) engaging the guide tab opening (corresponding opening on base); the base further defines a side opening (opening 30 or 31 taught onto base corresponding to side flange); the guide further comprises a side flange (see side flange in annotated drawings above); and the side flange comprises a side tab engaging the side opening (opening 30 or 31 of Dockter taught onto base corresponding to side flange). Note that once the tab and opening protocol is taught to attach the flanges to the base of Delaney, it is understood how flanges would carry tabs and the base would have four openings corresponding to said tabs.
In regards to claim 33 Redman as modified by Delaney and Dockter teaches the guide flange is substantially identical to the side flange (as shown in fig. 3A; Delaney).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Redman discloses each side rail 21 comprises a web 23 and outwardly directed flanges 24 that contain edges containing inwardly turned lips 25. The Office Action alleges the side rails 21,41 can be considered the first rail of the first track member, the flange 24 can be considered the flange of the first rail of the first track member, and the flange 44 can be considered the flange of the first rail of the second track member ... However, Applicant respectfully submits that Redman fails to disclose that the flange of the first rail can comprise "a first portion, a second portion, and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion," as required by claim 1”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that Firstly, the claim positively recites that “the first flange of each first rail comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion” not that is “the flange of the first rail can comprise”, secondly, examiner directs applicant’s attention to the two major issues associated with this recitation (a) the lack of illustration of the claimed limitation and (b) that the recitation is indefinite because it is also not understood how flanges such as (620, 630) shown in fig 6 can be made of two separate portion and a connector joining the first portion and the second portion. It is submitted that such design/structure cannot be merely appreciated or predicable as to how it would look or function, it is also submitted that this is not a known structure in the art where applicant may not need to show the details of, and that the numerals used in paragraph [0088] are not reflected in any of the drawings i.e. 2610, 2620, 2630.
Applicant’s arguments against references Van Valkenburgh and Hutchinson are moot since neither of those references are utilized in the current rejection.
Applicant’s argument against the other rejections i.e., Claims 7-9, Claims 29-33 as well as newly submitted claims 34-37, are also directed toward the same recitation addressed above.
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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights