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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattson 10,151,427.
In Re Claim 16, Mattson teaches a system comprising: at least two support rails (150) extending in a first longitudinal direction and attachable to a rigid overhead structure in a first fixed lateral spaced relationship; (Fig. 5a, 6a) at least two tracks (100) extending in a second longitudinal direction that is transverse to the first longitudinal direction, wherein the at least two tracks have a first state (Column 3, Lines 13-23) in which the tracks are slidably retained and supported by the support rails and slidable in the first longitudinal direction relative to the support rails; wherein the tracks have a second state (Column 3, Lines 13-23) in which the tracks are retained and fixed relative to the support rails in second fixed lateral spaced relationship that is transverse to the first lateral fixed spaced relationship; (Fig. 5a, 6a) wherein the tracks each include lower platforms (110 ) that extend laterally outward, wherein the tracks define a path within the second fixed lateral spaced relationship to receive and support opposite ends of one or more storage bins such that the tracks on opposite sides of the path collectively support each of said one or more storage bins via the lower platforms disposed on opposite sides of the path. (Fig. 6a)
In Re Claim 17, Mattson teaches wherein the support rails have an inverted C-shape including lower inner support portions defining a bottom opening extending in the first longitudinal direction and a groove extending longitudinally above the lower inner support (155, Fig. 4)
In Re Claim 18, Mattson teaches wherein the tracks are supported by the support rails via a nut (161) that is slidably disposed within the groove above the lower inner support portions and a bolt that extends through the track and into threaded engagement with the nut, wherein the nut is at least partially blocked against rotation relative to the groove, wherein the nut is slidable relative to the lower support portions in the first state and is fixed relative to the lower support portions in the second state in response to tightening the bolt against the track and providing a downward force on the nut. (Column 3, Lines 13-29)
In Re Claim 19, Mattson teaches wherein the tracks are configured to selectively transition between the first state and the second state in response to loosening or tightening the bolt relative to the nut and the track in order to adjust and slide the tracks relative to the support rails. (Column 3, Lines 13-29)
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-11, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson 10,151,427 and Kennedy 1,785,315.
In Re Claim 1, Mattson teaches a system comprising: at least two tracks (100), each track configured to be fixed relative to a rigid overhead structure (Ceiling, Abstract) in a spaced relationship, (Fig. 6A) said tracks each having lower platforms (110) defining a path (Fig. 6A) in said spaced relationship to receive and support opposite ends of one or more storage bins (175) such that each of said tracks collectively support each of said one or more storage bins;
Mattson does not teach wherein said tracks include extension members on at least one end thereof for joining to a proximate track; wherein said extension members have a rectangular cross-section and are configured to slide into an open end of said proximate track opposite an end having said extension member.
However, Kennedy teaches wherein said tracks include extension members (25) on at least one end thereof for joining to a proximate track; wherein said extension members have a rectangular cross-section and are configured to slide into an open end of said proximate track opposite an end having said extension member. (Fig. 1-3 and 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add extension members in the system of Mattson as taught by Kennedy with a reasonable expectation for success in order to add to the length of track with a stable easy to assemble connection.
In Re Claim 2, Mattson teaches further comprising at least two support rails (150) attachable to a rigid overhead structure in a space relationship, wherein the at least two tracks are configured to slidably attach to each of the at least support rails.
In Re Claim 4, Mattson teaches wherein the at least two tracks have an inverted U-shape cross-section, including an upper wall and a pair of sidewalls that extending downward therefrom, where the lower platforms extend laterally outward from a bottom of each of the sidewall, wherein an open space is defined between the sidewalls and below the upper wall. (Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 8, Mattson teaches wherein the support rail includes an internal groove extending longitudinally between the ends of the rail, wherein the support rail includes a bottom opening extending longitudinally along a bottom structure of the rail, wherein the bottom opening is narrower relative to the groove. (Fig. 4)
In Re Claim 9 Mattson teaches wherein the at least two tracks are slidably secured to the support rail via a slider (160) and a bolt (165), wherein the slider is sized and configured to be supported within the groove by the bottom structure of the rail, and wherein the bolt extends upward through an opening in the track and into threaded engagement with the slider. (Fig. 4)
In Re Claim 10, Mattson teaches wherein tightening the bolt relative to the slider fixes the slider and track relative to the support rail, wherein loosening the bolt relative to the slider allows for sliding movement of the track relative to the rail. (Column 3, Lines 13-23)
In Re Claim 11, Mattson teaches wherein slidable movement of the track relative to the rail adjusts the spaced relation between laterally spaced tracks to accommodate a predetermined size of the storage bin. (Column 3, Lines 13-23)
In Re Claim 15, Mattson teaches wherein the lower platforms (110) that extend laterally outward from the track are opposite side portions of a lower wall member of the track. (Fig. 2)
In Re Claim 21, Mattson teaches further comprising at least two support rails (150) attachable to a rigid overhead structure in a spaced relationship, wherein the at least two tracks are configured to slidably attach to each of the at least support rails. (Fig. 6a)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson/Kennedy and in view of Schoewe 8,782,962.
In Re Claim 3, Mattson/Kennedy teaches the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Mattson/Kennedy does not teach wherein the at least two tracks are configured to fixedly attach directly to a ceiling.
However, Schoewe teaches wherein the at least two tracks (22) are configured to fixedly attach directly to a ceiling. (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to attach tracks directly to the ceiling in the system of Mattson/Kennedy as taught by Schoewe with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce costs by reducing components in the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson 10,151,427 and In view of Kennedy 1,785,315.
In Re Claim 20, Mattson teaches the system of Claim 19 as discussed above.
Mattson does not teach wherein said tracks include extension members on at least one end thereof for joining to a proximate track, wherein said extension members have a rectangular cross-section and are configured to slide into an open end of said proximate track opposite an end having said extension member.
However, Kennedy teaches wherein said tracks include extension members (25) on at least one end thereof for joining to a proximate track, wherein said extension members have a rectangular cross-section and are configured to slide into an open end of said proximate track opposite an end having said extension member. (Fig. 1-3 and 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add extension members in the system of Mattson as taught by Kennedy with a reasonable expectation for success in order to add to the length of track with a stable easy to assemble connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Found, Schneider and in view Jasniy teach a system comprising at least two tracks fixed to an overhead structure and supporting storage bins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652