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
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 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Chaabi (US 6659014 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Chaabi discloses:
A network of tubular track system for transporting items (10) (Fig 1 & Fig. 2B & Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-48 & Column 3 Lines 54-66] comprising:
a first track comprising i) a tubular conduit (12) and ii) an upper rails (44) and lower rails (44) arranged vertically inside of the tubular conduit (Fig. 6B) [Column 6 Lines 1-6];
one or more nodes connected by the first track (Fig. 10A) [Column 9 Lines 15-19]; and
a self-propelled cart (18) configured to travel along the first track between the one or more nodes and transition between the upper rails and lower rails at the one or more nodes (Fig. 2B & Fig. 6A & Fig. 6B & Fig. 10A) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-51 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 6 Lines 50-64 & Column 9 Lines 15-19].
Regarding Claim 2, Chaabi discloses:
the self-propelled cart travels along the upper rails in a first direction and the lower rails in an opposite direction autonomously (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B & Fig. 8A & Fig. 8B & Fig. 10A) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-51 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 6 Lines 50-64 & Column 9 Lines 15-19].
Regarding Claim 3, Chaabi discloses:
a configuration of the upper rails and lower rails has a headspace above the upper rails allowing the self-propelled cart to pass through with a payload (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 4, Chaabi discloses:
a configuration of the upper rails and lower rails has a clearance space between the upper rails and the lower rails allowing the self-propelled cart to pass through without a payload (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 5, Chaabi discloses:
the upper rails have a width greater than a width of the lower rails (Fig. 6B).
Regarding Claim 7, Chaabi discloses:
the node comprises a vertical transition mechanism to transition the self-propelled cart between the upper rails and the lower rails (Fig. 10A & Fig. 10B & Fig. 10C) [Column 9 Lines 15-67 & Column 10 Lines 1-5].
Regarding Claim 8, Chaabi discloses:
a configuration of the upper rails and lower rails has a clearance space between the upper rails and the lower rails allowing the self-propelled cart to pass through with a payload (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 9, Chaabi discloses:
the network of tubular track system is located underground (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2B & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5) [Column 3 Lines 15-19 & Column 3 Lines 47-50 & Column 4 Lines 34-36].
Regarding Claim 10, Chaabi discloses:
an intersection point connected by a second track (Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 59-66].
Regarding Claim 11, Chaabi discloses:
the second track comprises upper rails and lower rails having a configuration different from a configuration of the first track (Fig. 3 & Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 6D & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 3 Lines 59-66 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 12, Chaabi discloses:
the configuration of the second track allows the self-propelled cart to pass through with a payload on both the upper rails and the lower rails (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 13, Chaabi discloses:
the self-propelled cart is controlled to travel along the first track and the second track autonomously based at least in part on a real-time traffic status or the network of tubular track system [Column 5 Lines 13-38 & Column 6 Lines 50-67].
Regarding Claim 14, Chaabi discloses:
the self-propelled cart is controlled to enter the intersection point or the one or more nodes based at least in part on sensor data [Column 10 Lines 42-47].
Regarding Claim 15, Chaabi discloses:
A method for transporting items (10) (Fig 1 & Fig. 2B & Fig. 3) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-48 & Column 3 Lines 54-66] comprising:
providing a first track comprising i) a tubular conduit (12) and ii) upper rails (44) and lower rails (44) arranged vertically inside of the tubular conduit (Fig. 6B) [Column 6 Lines 1-6];
providing one or more nodes connected by the first track (Fig. 10A) [Column 9 Lines 15-19]; and
controlling a self-propelled cart (18) to travel along the first track between the one or more nodes and transition between the upper rails and lower rails at the one or more nodes (Fig. 2B & Fig. 6A & Fig. 6B & Fig. 10A) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-51 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 6 Lines 50-64 & Column 9 Lines 15-19].
Regarding Claim 16, Chaabi discloses:
the self-propelled cart travels along the upper rails in a first direction and the lower rails in an opposite direction (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B & Fig. 8A & Fig. 8B & Fig. 10A) [Column 3 Lines 15-22 & Column 3 Lines 47-51 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 6 Lines 50-64 & Column 9 Lines 15-19].
Regarding Claim 17, Chaabi discloses:
a configuration of the upper rails and lower rails has a headspace above the upper rails allowing the self-propelled cart to pass through with a payload (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 18, Chaabi discloses:
a configuration of the upper rails and lower rails has a clearance space between the upper rails and the lower rails allowing the self-propelled cart to pass through without a payload (Fig. 6B & Fig. 6C & Fig. 7B) [Column 3 Lines 19-24 & Column 6 Lines 1-6 & Column 7 Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 19, Chaabi discloses:
the upper rails have a width greater than a width of the lower rails (Fig. 6B).
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 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 of this title, 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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaabi (US 6659014 B2) in view of Benoliel (US 20150015017 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Chaabi does not teach:
the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails.
Benoliel teaches:
A network of track system (84) for transporting items [0002 & 0003 & 0015 & 0038 & 0039 & 0040] comprising:
a first track comprising an upper rails (86 & 88) and lower path (Fig. 14) arranged vertically (Fig. 14) [0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058 & 0059 & 0060 & 0061];
a self-propelled cart (30 & 32 & 60 & 62 & 80 & 82) configured to travel along the first track on the upper rails and lower rails at (Fig. 3 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 14) [0022 & 0023 & 0024 & 0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058 & 0059 & 0060 & 0061];
the upper rails have a width greater than a width of the lower rails (Fig. 14) [0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058 & 0059 & 0060 & 0061];
the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails (Fig. 3 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 14) [0022 & 0023 & 0024 & 0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0058 & 0059 & 0060 & 0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-propelled cart transfer system utilizing a network of tubular track having rails of varying widths taught by Chaabi with the self-propelled cart transfer system utilizing a network of track having rails of varying widths and the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails taught by Benoliel in order to provide a transfer system having carts capable of traveling on any of the tracks in order to increase utility of the carts.
Regarding Claim 20, Chaabi does not teach:
the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails.
Benoliel teaches:
the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the self-propelled cart transfer system utilizing a network of tubular track having rails of varying widths taught by Chaabi with the self-propelled cart transfer system utilizing a network of track having rails of varying widths and the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails taught by Benoliel in order to provide a transfer system having carts capable of traveling on any of the tracks in order to increase utility of the carts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Patent publication US 6240851 B1 has been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: self-propelled cart transfer system utilizing a network of track having rails of varying widths and the self-propelled cart comprises a mechanism to automatically adjust a width of a wheel track of the self-propelled cart to adapt to the width of the upper rails and the lower rails. Patent publications US 20180186389 A1 and US 20200239036 A1 have been cited by the examiner as pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because they teach: a network of tubular track system for transporting items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights