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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered May 15, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 17-20, 28-34 are pending. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-16, 21-27 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 28, 29, 30, 33 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 34 is/are newly presented.
It is noted that claim 20 appears to inadvertently contain a strike-through through the claim number. It is noted that claims 28 and 29 contain new language without underlining. This will not be held as non-responsive.
The drawings were received on May 15, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
The previously presented drawing objection is hereby withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has traversed the election by original presentation on the grounds that the amended claim 30 recites “at least one power pick-up panel of the conveyor system”. This is not found persuasive because the combination of claim 1 does not require the particulars of the subcombination in claim 30 and the subcombination of claim 30 could be used in a system not comprising a track section. It is further noted that the power pick-up panel is disclosed in the specification as part of the accessory, not the conveyor system.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Prüssmeier et al. fails to teach the accessory controller is configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from the control system. Applicant argues Prüssmeier et al. does not teach “wireless communications from the control system” and that Prüssmeier et al. does not teach the claimed “accessory controller”.
Applicant argues that “wireless communications” has a specific meaning in the specification. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., RF far-field type of communication) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, applicant has not clearly set forth an explicit definition for “wireless communication” to include the elements recited in the specification. The data transmission of Prüssmeier et al. does not use wires to connect the control system and the accessory controller; therefore, the communication is considered wireless. Further, Prüssmeier et al., at Paragraph 144, discloses “bidirectional, synchronous communication is achieved for example by magnetic or electromagnetic pulses (signals, waves)”, which is considered a clear disclose of “wireless communication”.
Prüssmeier et al. discloses power transmission and data transmission and provides different coils for power transmission and data transmission. The rail (105) of Prüssmeier et al. comprises power-transmitting coils (125) and data transmission coils (127,129,131,133,135) while the carriage (103) comprises a power receiving coil (137) and data coils (139, 141, 143) to receive and/or send data to the data coils of the track.
Applicant further argues Prüssmeier et al. fails to teach “an accessory controller”. However, at Paragraph 25, Prüssmeier et al. discloses “the carriage-control device is embodied to control the electrical device based on the received data”. At Paragraph 78, Prüssmeier et al. discloses “data include, for example, control commands”. The “carriage-control device” is considered to be an accessory controller.
Based on the above, it appears that Prüssmeier et al. clearly discloses “an accessory controller is configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from the control system”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The language of claim 29 is directed to elements of the conveyor system (such as the downlink converter). The downlink converter is not part of the moving element; therefore, the language directed to the conveyor system cannot limit the moving element. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prüssmeier et al. (US Pub 2021/0046826 A1, having a publication date of February 18, 2021, which is prior to the effective filing date of the instant application of March 31, 2021).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Prüssmeier et al. (US Pub 2021/0046826 A1) teaches a system for providing power to an accessory (electrical device 157) on a moving element (carriage 103) on a conveyor (guide rail 105), the system comprising: a plurality of moving elements (carriage 103), each moving element comprising one or more power pick-up panels (module 123) and the accessory (electrical device 157), the accessory comprising an accessory controller [Para. 21-26, “carriage-control device”]; and at least one track section with which the plurality of moving elements are associated, the track section comprising: a control system (151, see Para. 76,79); a track (guide rail 105) on which the plurality of moving elements move; and a track power system comprising a plurality of inductive panels (modules 121); wherein the one or more power pick-up panels and the plurality of inductive panels interact such that power is transferred to the one or more power pick-up panels from the plurality of inductive panels to provide power to the accessory, and wherein the accessory controller is configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from the control system. Stationary data coils (127, 129, 131, 133, 135) are inductively coupled to data coils (139, 141, 143) mounted on the carriage. Data transferred by the coils is used by the carriage-control device to control the electrical device [Para. 24, 25].
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Prüssmeier et al. teaches a gripper [Para. 86].
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Prüssmeier et al. teaches a moving element (carriage 103) for use in a conveyor system, the moving element comprising: a plurality of power pick-up panels (module 123) adapted to receive power from a power transfer system [Para. 75, “power-receiving coil”] provided to the conveyor system; and an accessory (electrical device 157) comprising an accessory controller [Para. 21-26, “carriage-control device”], wherein the accessory controller in configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from a control system (151, see Para. 76,79) provided to the conveyor system. Stationary data coils (127, 129, 131, 133, 135) are inductively coupled to data coils (139, 141, 143) mounted on the carriage. Data transferred by the coils is used by the carriage-control device to control the electrical device [Para. 24, 25].
Regarding Claim(s) 29, the claim does not recite any structure that would further limit the moving element. As claim 29 incorporates by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers (claim 5) and does not further limit claim 5, claim 29 is considered anticipated similar to claim 5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prüssmeier et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hintz et al. (USPN 6253901).
Regarding Claim(s) 34, Prüssmeier et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach one or more of the plurality of inductive panels extend perpendicular to the track. Hintz et al. teaches an inductive panel (25) that extends perpendicular to a track (device 23 attached to rail 14) and towards a moving element (conveying element 2). Hintz et al. further teaches pick-up panels (walls 26 forming slot-shaped recess 24) that extend toward the track. Hintz et al. further discloses [Col. 7:4-7. "the slot-shaped recess 24 of each conveying element 2 is open to onc of the sides of the sorter 1. However, it could just as casily be open in an upward direction, or downwardly, and, if necessary, toward the inside"]. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inductive panels of Prüssmeier et al. such that the panels are perpendicular to the track as engineering expedient. The modification could be used to modify the system to fit a desired space. The modification would not alter the operation of the inductive panels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20, 28 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:
Regarding Claim(s) 17, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a gripper motor and a rotation motor, wherein the gripper motor is mechanically connected with and configured to open and close the plurality of grippers and the rotation motor is mechanically connected with and configured to rotate the plurality of grippers, combined with the rest of the claim language. Achterberg et al. (US Pub 20230044922 A1) discloses a gripper (Figure 6-8) comprising a body (310), gripper motor (321), a plurality of grippers (311, 312), wherein the gripper motor is configured to open and close the plurality of grippers, but fails to teach a rotation motor configured to rotate the plurality of grippers.
Regarding Claim(s) 28, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a downlink converter configured to translate commands from the control system into a concise communication protocol for wireless transmission to the accessory controller, combined with the rest of the claim language. The communication electronics of Achterburg et al. appears to translate a data signal after wireless transmission, not prior [See Paragraph 49, “electronics 122 is configured to receive a first data signal via the movable antenna 110, to calculate a second data signal…and to provide the second data signal at the communication link of the interface 124”.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights