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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (Fig. 4) in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 June 2026.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US Pat. No. 10,822,168 B2) in view of Liss et al. (US Pat. No. 10,299,594 B2).
In regards to claim 1, Sullivan teaches a rack arrangement for item-storage, comprising: an aisle (130a, Fig. 3), in which an automatically operated storage-and-retrieval vehicle (110, Fig. 6G) can travel; rack elements (501, 502), including a first rack element (501) on one side of the aisle, and a second rack element (502) on an opposite, other side of the aisle; a rail arrangement (1300, Fig. 6F) on the rack elements, the automatically operated storage-and-retrieval vehicle being able to travel on the rail arrangement; item carriers (620, Fig. 4), which are arranged in the rack elements and have a longitudinal extent in a direction transverse to the aisle, wherein each item carrier is a single-piece profile element, of which an upper side forms a bearing surface (620H1, H2, Fig. 4) for an item (1101) to be stored on the item carriers, and wherein each item carrier includes main longitudinal portions with a uniform cross-sectional shape.
Sullivan does not teach each item carrier has material deformations in certain portions along its longitudinal extent, and arranged between the main longitudinal portions, short longitudinal portions, having a different cross- sectional shape caused by the material deformations, the short longitudinal portions being shorter than the main longitudinal portions.
Liss teaches item carriers (12a, Fig. 4A) each having material deformations (62a) in certain portions along its longitudinal extent, and arranged between main longitudinal portions (44a), short longitudinal portions (62a), having a different cross- sectional shape caused by the material deformations, the short longitudinal portions being shorter than the main longitudinal portions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Sullivan’s items carries such that each item carrier has material deformations in certain portions along its longitudinal extent, and arranged between the main longitudinal portions, short longitudinal portions, having a different cross- sectional shape caused by the material deformations, the short longitudinal portions being shorter than the main longitudinal portions. The motivation would be for the purpose of improving stiffness and rigidity of the item carriers as taught by Liss (Col 5, Lines 59-67, Col 6, Lines 1-4).
In regards to claim 2, modified Sullivan teaches wherein in each case two of the item carriers (Sullivan: 620) are arranged parallel to one another at a distance apart and, together, form the bearing surface for the item which can be stored thereon, and wherein the material deformations (Liss: 62a) on a second of the two of the item carriers are arranged in a mirror-inverted manner in comparison with the material deformations (Liss: 62a) on a first of the two of the item carriers.
In regards to claims 3 and 4, Sullivan, modified by Liss, does not explicitly teach a total length of the main longitudinal portions is at least four times a total length of the short longitudinal portions (claim 3); and a number of the main longitudinal portions is at least three (claim 4).
However, Liss teaches any number and size of the ribs (62a) can be positioned any surfaces of the bars (Col 5, Lines 59-67, Col 6, Lines 1-4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Sullivan’s item carriers such that a total length of the main longitudinal portions is at least four times a total length of the short longitudinal portions (claim 3); and a number of the main longitudinal portions is at least three (claim 4). The motivation would be for the purpose of using any number and size of the material deformations to improve stiffness and rigidity as taught by Liss (Col 5, Lines 59-67, Col 6, Lines 1-4).
In regards to claim 5, in modifying Sullivan, Liss teaches the material deformations (Liss: 62a) can be positioned on any surfaces (Col 5, Lines 59-67, Col 6, lines 1-4), such that on the short longitudinal portions, the material deformations extend into a horizontal plane higher than a plane of the bearing surface (i.e.; on the top surface of the item carrier).
In regards to claim 6, in modifying Sullivan, Liss teaches the material deformations are lugs (Liss: 62a) projecting from each item carrier.
In regards to claim 7, modified Sullivan teaches each item carrier (Sullivan: 620) is designed in form of an upwardly open profile having a C-shaped profile cross section, wherein two ends (Sullivan: 620H1, H2, Fig. 4) of the C-shaped profile cross section, together, form the bearing surface for the item. In addition, Sullivan teaches the two ends can having any configuration (Col 6, Lines 56-59), such that It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify the two ends to be directed toward each other. The motivation would be for the purpose of an obvious reconfiguration of the two ends as recognized by Sullivan.
In regards to claims 9-11, in modifying Sullivan, Liss teaches the material deformations/lugs (Liss: 62a) can be positioned on any surfaces (Col 5, Lines 59-67, Col 6, lines 1-4), such that they are capable of being use for providing lateral stops for the item which can be stored on the bearing surface, with the lugs on a plurality of the short longitudinal portions extend laterally beyond the bearing surface (e.g.; on the sides of the item carriers) (claim 9); and all the lugs (Liss: 62a) extending laterally beyond the bearing surface are located on one side relative to a longitudinal center line of each item carrier (claim 10); and for providing a boundary stop in a longitudinal direction for the item, a lug (Liss: 62a) on one of the short longitudinal portions extends upwards beyond the bearing surface (claim 11) (i.e.; the lugs have a material height and width on any of the surfaces they are located on).
In regards to claim 12, modified Sullivan teaches the rail arrangement comprises a first running rail (Sullivan: 610/1300, Fig. 6F), which is fastened on the first rack element (Sullivan: 501), and a second running rail (an opposite 610/1300), which is fastened on the second rack element (Sullivan: 520), and wherein, those ends of the item carriers (Sullivan: 620) which are directed towards the aisle are respectively supported directly on the first running rail or the second running rail (i.e.; on portion 610 of the rails).
In regards to claim 14, modified Sullivan teaches the first running rail has formed on it a running-surface portion (Sullivan: 1300), on which wheels of the automatically operated storage-and-retrieval vehicle can travel, and a carrying portion (Sullivan: 610), which supports the ends of the item carriers.
In regards to claim 15, modified Sullivan teaches respective ends of the item carriers (Sullivan: 620) are fixed on the first running rail (Sullivan: 610/1300) or the second running rail (Sullivan: 610/1300) at least in a longitudinal direction.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US Pat. No. 10,822,168 B2) and Liss et al. (US Pat. No. 10,299,594 B2), and in further view of Salichs et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0129456 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Sullivan, modified by Liss, does not teach the first running rail is a profile of S-shaped profile cross section. Salichs teaches a running rail (56) having an S-shaped profile cross section.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Sullivan’s running rail to have an S-shaped profile cross section. The motivation would be for the purpose of attaching to a bracket without welding and for transferring loads to the uprights as taught by Salichs (Para. 0036-0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16-18 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 closest prior art of record is discussed above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious a rack arrangement having the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to the Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights