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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” (LINE 7) and “said,” should be avoided.
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 insulator of claim 1 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 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears ---a--- should be inserted on line 6, before “a third rail”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears ---a--- should be inserted on line 6, before “a third rail”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears ---a--- should be inserted on line 6, before “a third rail”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 10, 18-19, 22, 26-31, 33-34, and 40 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.
In claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recite the broad recitation “transport carrier and/or hanging article”, and the claim also recites “in particular the transport bag” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first counter running surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "by means of which" in line 3 which is indefinite and vague. Also, in claim 19, line 6, the claim recites “the second counter running surface” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 22, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “the diverter element is horizontally or vertically displaceable”, and the claim also recites “in particular pivotable or slidable” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first support wheel pair" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first guide wheel pair" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the first guide wheel pair" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the first drive wheel pair" in lines 16 and 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the second drive wheel" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the first support wheel" in lines 21-22, lines 25-26, lines 30-31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the second support wheel" in lines 23, 27, and 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the first support wheel pair" in lines 23-24, line 26, lines 27-28, line 31 and lines 32-33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first adjusting wheel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first adjusting wheel pair" in lines 4, 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the second adjusting wheel" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the first additional adjusting wheel" in lines 10-11, lines 15-16 and lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the additional adjusting wheel pair" in lines 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, and 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the second additional adjusting wheel" in lines 12-13, and 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the diverter guide surfaces and/or the support surfaces" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the drive wheels" in the next to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the diverter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the drive wheels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 40, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 40 recites the broad recitation “having a plurality of individually activatable luminous dots”, and the claim also recites “in the form of a matrix” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 20-21, 23-25, 32, 35-39, are 41-43 are allowed.
Claims 10, 18-19, 22, 26-31, 33-34, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-6915. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/DOUGLAS A HESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
DAH
April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights