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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 13, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The submission entered October 13, 2025 in response to an Office Action mailed June 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 17-20, 28-33 are pending. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-16, 21-27 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 5, 20 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 28-33 is/are newly presented.
The drawing objections presented in the aforementioned Office Action are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 30-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 30-33 are directed to a subcombination. The combination of claims 1, 2, 5, 17-20, 28, 29 do not require the particulars of the subcombination and the subcombination can be used in a system not comprising power pick-up panels.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 30-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Prussmeier does not teach or suggest an accessory controller and wireless communications. However, as described below, Prussmeier is considered to disclose the claimed features. The claim amendments have resulted in rejections under 35 USC 102 rather than 35 USC 103, but are still based on Prussmeier.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are two figures labeled 12C. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 28 and 29 set forth that the accessory controller comprises a downlink converter; however, the specification appears to disclose the downlink converter is a separate element from the accessory controller (as disclosed at Paragraphs 98 and 99 of the specification). As such, the claim language “the accessory controller comprises a downlink converter” is not supported by the original specification. This is a new matter rejection.
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 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) while the moving element is moving, 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 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].
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) 28, 29 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 Achterberg et al. (US Pub 20230044922 A1, having an effectively filed date of April 21, 2020, which is prior to the effective filing date of the instant application of March 31, 2021).
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Prüssmeier et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a downlink converter for receiving and converting concise communication protocol transmissions from the control system. Achterberg et al. teaches a system comprising a plurality of moving elements (20), each comprising an accessory (tool 300) and an accessory controller (switch-on unit 100) configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from the control system [Para. 49-51, 65], and further comprising a downlink converter (Figure 17, communications converter 260) for receiving and converting concise communication protocol transmissions from the control system. Connection (202) are connected to the antenna. Data is passed through data communication (213) to circuit (221), control element (223) and then converter (260) before being passed to the tool (300) through interface (203). See Para. 77, 86. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a downlink converter to convert data from a control system to a signal that can be used by the tool as taught by Achterberg et al. This would allow the tool to be used in different control environments.
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Prüssmeier et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a downlink converter for receiving and converting concise communication protocol transmissions from the control system. Achterberg et al. teaches a system comprising a plurality of moving elements (20), each comprising an accessory (tool 300) and an accessory controller (switch-on unit 100) configured to operate the accessory based on wireless communications from the control system [Para. 49-51, 65], and further comprising a downlink converter (Figure 17, communications converter 260) for receiving and converting concise communication protocol transmissions from the control system. Connection (202) are connected to the antenna. Data is passed through data communication (213) to circuit (221), control element (223) and then converter (260) before being passed to the tool (300) through interface (203). See Para. 77, 86. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a downlink converter to convert data from a control system to a signal that can be used by the tool as taught by Achterberg et al. This would allow the tool to be used in different control environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 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.
Conclusion
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