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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102023000019539, filed on 09/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “the first guide 1” in line 4. This should read “the first guide (1)”. 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 1-11 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 “a point (P)” in lines 6-7. However, claims 10 and 11 also recites “a path (P)”. The reference letter (P) is inconsistent for defining subject matter. To eliminate ambiguity, it is recommended for the applicant to remove the reference letters “P” or change the reference letter for “path” to be (PT).
Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(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) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fredrik et al. (US 2198536 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fredrik teaches (Fig. 1-5): An alignment assembly comprising: - a first guide (track 4 with movable end member 2), comprising a first section (annotated Fig. 1 below) identifying a first axis (Fig. 1); - a second guide (flexible track 10), extending prevalently along a second axis between a first end portion (annotated Fig. 1 below), constrained to the first guide (2,4)(Fig. 1 and 3-5), and a second end portion (annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the first guide (2, 4) comprises a second section (movable end member 2), rotatably constrained to the first section (annotated Fig. 1 below) in a point (3), and configured to rotate about a rotation axis passing through the point (3) and perpendicular to the first axis (axis of the first section; Fig. 1)(Fredrik, page 1, col. 1, lines 24-27), and that the second guide (10) is constrained to the first guide (2, 4) at the second section (2) and is integrally movable with said second section (2)(the flexible track 10 is constrained to the movable end member 2 by the filler block 14 as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 2, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): wherein the second section (2) is movable between an aligned configuration (Fig. 1), in which the first axis (axis of first section; annotated Fig. 1 below) and the second axis (axis of flexible track 10) are substantially aligned (Fig. 2), and an unaligned configuration, in which the first axis and the second axis identify an angle (after the movable rail end 2 is pivoted, the flexible track defines an angle with the first section; Fig. 1) .
Regarding claim 3, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the second section (2) is movable between the aligned configuration (Fig. 1) and the unaligned configuration as a result of a force exerted (weight of carrier) on the second section (2) of the first guide (2, 4) or on the second guide (2)(Fredrik, page 1, col. 2, lines 37-53).
Regarding claim 4, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the force exerted on the second section (12) of the first guide (2, 4) or on the second guide (10) has at least one component extending in a vertical direction (force exerted by weight of carrier; Fredrik, page 1, col. 2, lines 37-53; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the force exerted is the resultant of the forces acting on a carriage (16) that is slidable along a direction between the first guide (2, 4) and the second guide (10), or along a direction between the second guide (10) and the first guide (2, 4)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the second guide (10) is a cable (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the first guide (2, 4) is a track (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the second section (2) of the first guide (2, 4) comprises a constraining device (14), configured to constrain the second guide (10) to the first guide (2, 4)(the flexible track 10 is constrained to the movable end member 2 by the filler block 14 as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): A conveyance apparatus for conveying a carriage (16) along a path (Fig. 1), wherein the path is a trajectory defined by at least a first guide (2, 4) connected to a second guide (10), said apparatus comprising at least one alignment assembly for aligning the first guide (2, 4) with the second guide (10)(Fig. 1); wherein the first guide (2, 4) comprises a first section identifying a first axis (annotated Fig. 1 below) and wherein the second guide (10) extends prevalently along a second axis between a first end portion (annotated Fig. 1 below), constrained to the first guide (2, 4), and a second end portion extending away from the first guide (2, 4)(annotated Fig. 1 below); and wherein the first guide (2, 4) comprises a second section (2), rotatably constrained to the first section in a point (3), and configured to rotate about a rotation axis passing through the point (3) and perpendicular to the first axis (annotated Fig. 1 below), and that the second guide (10) is constrained (through flanges 12 and filler block 14) to the first guide (2, 4) at the second section (2) and is integrally movable with said second section (annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the alignment assembly is an alignment assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredrik et al. (US 2198536 A), in view of Ferris (US 1282403 A).
Regarding claim 9, Fredrik does not explicitly teach at least one connection body, the connection body having a first end constrained to the first guide at the first section and a second end constrained to the first guide at the second section.
However, Ferris teaches an alternate overhead flexible cable track, wherein (Fig. 1-2): an alignment assembly has at least one connection body (bracket 6 and heavy bracket 8 of the framework of a building; page 1, lines 19-21), the connection body (6, 8) having a first end constrained to a first guide (rigid track 5) at a first section (constrained through bracket 6) and a second end constrained to the first guide (5) at a second section (coupling member 7)(constrained through bracket 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fredrik to include a connection body having two ends for constraining a first section of the first guide to a second section of the first guide, as disclosed by Ferris, with a reasonable expectation of success because the addition of the support framework would structurally support the rigid track at a designated height for guiding the aerial tram along a path.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredrik et al. (US 2198536 A), in view of Schulze (EP 2466006 A2, provided).
Regarding claim 11, Fredrik further teaches (Fig. 1-5): the second guide (10) defining the path (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach a motor means adapted to move the carriage along the first guide.
However, Schulze teaches an alternate rail system trolley, wherein (Fig. 1): a motor means (electric motor 24) is adapted to move a carriage (trolley 16) along a first guide (support rail 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Fredrik to include a motor for moving the carriage along the guide, as disclosed by Schulze, with a reasonable expectation of success because an energized motor would allow the carriage to be driven automatically without external push/pull force from an user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-1271454-A, US-2140585-A, US-2696175-A, US-7089868-B2, US-20090202323-A1, US-20130333586-A1, US-8863668-B2, US-10213700-B2, US-20220274632-A1, US-20240108992-A1, US-12415552-B2, JP-H0726728-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights