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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figure 8 contains reference character “800”, not present within the specification.
Figure 14 contains reference character “214”, not present within specification. Examiner notes that “215” within Para.[0081], references the platform positioning motor, which is not included in the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para.[0020] contains acronym “RFID”. Please add the appropriate meaning of the acronym being introduced prior to utilization of the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 28 introduces the acronym RFID. Please add the appropriate meaning of the acronym within the claim prior to utilization of the acronym. 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.
Claim 6 and 7 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 6 recites the limitation “said one or more wheels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependency upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 22-23, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogi et al. (US 3796164 A) in view of Ruivenkamp (EP 3162694 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Nogi teaches a transportation unit for a container (2"; Fig.2a), the transportation unit having: a wheel arrangement (16; Fig.2c) including wheels for engaging a rail (R; Fig.2c) along which the container (C; Fig.2c) is conveyable, each wheel being locatable at a side of the container (Fig.2c); a chassis on which the container to be conveyed is located (bottom of 2": Fig.2a), and arms extending from opposite sides of the chassis (sides of 2"; Fig.2c), wherein said unit is detachably mounted to the container (Fig.2c), wherein said unit is an independent vehicle that can be controlled and managed without any connection to the container (Col.4, lines 22-34), and the wheels being located on the container (Fig.2c). Nogi does not teach wherein the arms are pivotable inward relative to the chassis as the container is being located on the chassis so as to clamp the container between the arms of the chassis.
However, Ruivenkamp teaches a container support wherein arms are pivotable inward (2-2; Fig.4) relative to the chassis (3; Fig.4) as the container (4; Fig.3) is being located on the chassis so as to clamp the container between the arms of the chassis (Fig.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation unit of Nogi with the pivoting arms of Ruivenkamp to provide a more stable container connection to the transport unit and provide easier mounting of the container with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Nogi further teaches a transportation unit of claim 1, wherein the wheel arrangement includes two or more first wheels that are attachable to a first sidewall of the container and two or more second wheels that are attachable to a second opposite sidewall of the container (apparent from Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 3: Nogi further teaches a transportation unit of claim 2, wherein each of the first wheels and each of second wheels are respectively mounted at or near a mid-height of the container (Fig.2a).
Regarding claim 11: Nogi further teaches a transportation system for containers, the system comprising: at least one rail-based conveyance arrangement for conveying containers (Fig.2c), said arrangement having rails (R; Fig.2c) and being adapted or configured to engage a transportation unit according to claim 1, said arrangement being adapted or configured to allow a container to pass therethrough (Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 12: Nogi further teaches a transportation system of claim 11, wherein the rail-based conveyance arrangement is a pipe arrangement that includes a pipe having a width (T; Fig.2c), and rails on which the transportation unit for conveying the container is mounted (R; Fig.2c), each rail being positioned on opposite sides of the pipe wherein a distance between the rails substantially corresponds to the width of the pipe (Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 22: Nogi further teaches a transportation system of claim 11, wherein the rail-based conveyance arrangement includes a service conveyance flow-path for conveying the transportation unit to another conveyance flow-path along which a container is to be conveyed by said transportation unit (T'; Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 23: Nogi further teaches a transportation system of claim 22, wherein the rail-based conveyance arrangement is a pipe arrangement and the service conveyance flow-path and the other conveyance flow-path are each defined by a pipe (Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 30: Nogi further teaches a transportation system of claim 11, wherein the transportation system (Fig.2c) includes a power supply system (15; Fig.2c) for powering said transportation unit when said transportation unit is mounted to one of the containers for conveying the container through the rail-based conveyance arrangement (Fig.2c), wherein the power supply system includes an elongate track that spans a length of the rail-based conveyance arrangement (15; Fig.2c).
Regarding claim 32: Nogi further teaches a transportation system of claim 30, wherein the rail- based conveyance arrangement is a pipe arrangement (Fig.2c), and the elongate track (15; Fig.2c) is located in the pipe arrangement at an elevation below the rails (R; Fig.2c) of the rail-based conveyance arrangement (Fig.2c).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogi in view of Ruivenkamp and Proctor (WO 8704676 A1).
Regarding claim 24: Nogi teaches a transportation system of claim 11, having the rail-based conveyance arrangement (Fig.2c) for conveying containers (C; Fig.2c). Nogi does not teach a sloping portion for changing an elevation.
However, Proctor teaches the use of a sloping portion for changing an elevation of a rail track (Fig.9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation system of Nogi with the change in elevation of Proctor to provide a more adaptable transportation system to provide efficient container transport with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 26: Nogi teaches a transportation system of claim 11, the rail-based conveyance arrangement including first and second flow-paths (T,T’; Fig.2c). Nogi does not teach a vertically-spiralling helical pattern.
However, Proctor teaches the use of a vertically-spiralling helical pattern of a rail track (Fig.9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation system of Nogi with the arrangement of Proctor to provide a more adaptable transportation system to provide efficient container transport at multiple elevations with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 27, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogi in view of Ruivenkamp and Allshouse et al. (US 10000222 B2).
Regarding claim 27: Nogi teaches a transportation system of claim 11, having the rail-based conveyance arrangement and the transportation unit (Fig.2c). Nogi does not teach a sensor arrangement for determining a location of the transportation unit within the rail-based conveyance arrangement.
However, Allshouse teaches a sensor arrangement for determining a location of the transportation unit within the rail-based conveyance arrangement (Fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation system of Nogi with the sensor arrangement of Allshouse to provide accurate locations of transported containers for efficient transportation with a reasonable expectation.
Regarding claim 28: Nogi teaches a transportation system of claim 11, having the rail-based conveyance arrangement and the transportation unit (Fig.2c). Nogi does note teach wherein the sensor arrangement includes one or more RFID tags and one or more RFID readers for reading the RFID tags.
However, Allshouse teaches wherein the sensor arrangement includes one or more RFID tags (30; Fig.5) and one or more RFID readers for reading the RFID tags (32; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation system of Nogi with the sensor arrangement of Allshouse to provide accurate locations of transported containers for efficient transportation with a reasonable expectation.
Regarding claim 29: Nogi teaches a transportation system of claim 11, having the rail-based conveyance arrangement and the transportation unit (Fig.2c). Nogi does not teach wherein the RFID tags are provided along a length of the rail-based conveyance arrangement and the RFID reader for reading the RFID tags is provided on the transportation unit.
However, Allshouse teaches wherein the RFID tags are provided along a length of the rail-based conveyance arrangement (30; Fig.5) and the RFID reader for reading the RFID tags is provided on the transportation unit (32; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation system of Nogi with the sensor arrangement of Allshouse to provide accurate locations of transported containers for efficient transportation with a reasonable expectation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 36, 37 and 39 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.
Claims 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 5 and 36.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach one or more arms on each side of the chassis comprise a hook-shaped portion configured to be engageable by engaging portions of a gantry system for carrying the transportation unit as recited within claim 5. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine the transportation unit of Nogi with these features since the transportation units of Nogi remain on the trackway.
Further, the prior art fails to teach a first gantry and second gantry, the second gantry for carrying the transportation unit, and a controller for aligning the first gantry and the second gantry with each other so as to mount the transportation unit onto the container or to unmount the transportation unit from the container. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine the transportation unit of Nogi with these features since the transportation units of Nogi remain on the trackway and are not compatible to be used with a gantry crane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615