DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 6/25/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 8-14 represent a different subcombination from the original claims (and currently pending claims 1-7). Claims 8-14 have different drive requirements and require vertically alignable modules, whereas claims 1-7 include a series of horizontally arranged modules. Claims 15-19 are drawn to a method but fail to require the details of the apparatus of group 1 and could be carried out by another materially different apparatus.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2026/0200670 to Zhu.
Regarding claim 1 Zhu discloses a modularized storage system, comprising: a plurality of storage modules (see figure 6 showing two modules next to one another), each storage module including; a shelf body (where boxes are stored); a track system coupled with the shelf body, wherein the track system includes a plurality of horizontal tracks (11/31) coupled with the shelf body and a vertical track assembly slidably coupled with the plurality of horizontal tracks (12/21); a horizontal driving device coupled with the vertical track assembly, the horizontal driving device configured to drive the vertical track assembly along the plurality of horizontal tracks (paras 0083 and 0093); a handling device (13/14) slidably coupled with the vertical track assembly; and a vertical driving device coupled with the handling device, the vertical driving device configured to drive the handling device along the vertical track assembly (13 and para 0065); wherein the handling device is configured to manipulate items on the shelf body (para 0067).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of US 2021/0047117 to Stevens.
Regarding claims 6-7 Zhu discloses all the limitations of the claims except the track system further comprises: a horizontal electric rail coupled along a horizontal track; and a horizontal brush coupled with the vertical track assembly, the horizontal brush configured to engage the horizontal electric rail to electrically couple the vertical track assembly with the horizontal track and wherein the track system further comprises: a vertical electric rail coupled along a track of the vertical track assembly; and a vertical brush coupled with the handling device, the vertical brush configured to engage the vertical electric rail to couple the handling device to the vertical track assembly and provides electricity to power the handling device and the vertical driving device.
Stevens teaches a system including mounting brushes on a storage vehicle to contact charging rails that can be arranged at different locations within the system to recharge the ultra-capacitors that are used to power the vehicles (see paras 0132-133).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Zhu to include the track system further comprises: a horizontal electric rail coupled along a horizontal track; and a horizontal brush coupled with the vertical track assembly, the horizontal brush configured to engage the horizontal electric rail to electrically couple the vertical track assembly with the horizontal track and wherein the track system further comprises: a vertical electric rail coupled along a track of the vertical track assembly; and a vertical brush coupled with the handling device, the vertical brush configured to engage the vertical electric rail to couple the handling device to the vertical track assembly and provides electricity to power the handling device and the vertical driving device, based on the teaching of Stevens, in order to recharge the ultra-capacitors that are used to power the vehicles. It is noted that exact position of the electric rails is a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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 ability to align the first vertical track with the second vertical track such the handling device can move from the vertical track of one module to that of another adjacent module differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other rail based and modular storage systems.
Applicants’ 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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights