DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 12/01/2023.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Operating a Transport System Using Generated List of Transport Element Instances for Each Station.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because higher quality black and white versions of the drawings, including printed and legible reference numerals are required.
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
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11 of claim 1, “the respective station” should read “a respective station”.
In line 12 of claim 1, “the list” should read “a respective list” OR “the respective list” should read “a respective list”.
In lines 17-18 of claim 1, “a transport element” should be given an appropriate qualifier, like “first” or “target” instead of reciting “a transport element… this transport element”. This would also clarify claim 2.
Claims 2-11 are objected to due to their dependencies on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation “within the respective list, the instance of each transport element is linked to the instance of the transport element directly ahead of the observed transport element and to the instance of the transport element directly behind the observed transport element” in lines 12-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of “an observed transport element”. It is further unclear to what element “the observed transport element” is referring, so a simple correction of “the observed transport element” to “an observed transport element” would not correct the deficiency. The terms “the instance of the transport element directly ahead” and “the instance of the transport element directly behind” also require correction to clarify their antecedent basis since there is no previous recitation of these particular instances and because it is unclear what “the observed transport element” is.
Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependencies on claim 1.
An example correction to claim 1 is provided below:
“generating a list for each of the stations, wherein the instance for each of the transport elements associated with a respective station is associated with a respective list, and wherein, within the respective list, a first instance of each respective transport element is linked to a second instance of a transport element directly ahead of the respective transport element and to a third instance of a transport element directly behind the respective transport element; transferring a target transport element from a first station to a directly following second station and inserting an instance of the target transport element into the list of the second station…”
Claim 2 is additionally rejected due to insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear to what transport element “the transport element” is referring since there is a previously recited “transport element directly ahead”, “transport element directly behind”, “observed transport element”, “a transport element” and “this transport element”. The examiner recommends using appropriate qualifier terms, such as “a first” or “a target”, to differentiate between the elements of the claim.
Claim 3 is additionally rejected due to insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites “the link to the instance of the transport element directly in front of the observed transport element, the link to the instance of the transport element directly behind the observed transport element, and an identification feature for the respective transport element”. While claim 1 recites that each transport element “is linked”, there is not a previous recitation of “a link”, so it is unclear to what either instance of “the link” is referring. It is also unclear to what element “the respective transport element” is referring since there is no previous recitation of “a respective transport element”. It is not clear whether the respective transport element is the same as “the observed transport element” or if it is referring to the transport element corresponding to an instance of “each instance”, which is recited in the beginning of the claim.
Claim 4 is additionally rejected due to insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites “the respective instance”. There is no previous recitation of “a respective instance”, and it is unclear to what instance “the respective instance” is referring. An example of more clear claim language would be “wherein both links are configured as pointers referring to memory addresses of each instance corresponding to each respective link”.
Claim 5 is additionally rejected due to insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 5 recites “the respective pointers”. There is no previous recitation of “respective pointers”, and it is unclear to what pointers “the respective pointers” are referring. An example of more clear language would be “wherein transfer of an instance of the target transport element that was transferred from the first station to the directly following second station takes place by overwriting the memory addresses referred to by pointers corresponding to the instance of the target transport element”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“generating a list for each of the stations, wherein the instance for each of the transport elements associated with the respective station is associated with the list, and wherein, within the respective list, the instance of each transport element is linked to the instance of the transport element directly ahead of the observed transport element and to the instance of the transport element directly behind the observed transport element; transferring a transport element from a first station to a directly following second station and inserting the instance of this transport element into the list of the second station if a transport job that goes beyond the first station is present for the transport element, wherein the transfer takes place in an event-controlled manner and independently of a transfer point if a predetermined transfer condition is fulfilled”
These limitations, in specific combination as required by claim 1, define the patentability of the claims. Dependent claims 2-11 would be allowable for at least the same rationale.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Huang (US 2020/0017308 A1) teaches a configuration table maintained for each zone of a conveyor track that specifies movement speeds for the transport elements. (Abstract)
Collin (US 2018/0009605 A1) teaches a method of transferring transport elements between conveyor sections, including a buffer mode, bypass mode, and a mode that transports the load without buffer or bypass. (Abstract)
Huang (US 2023/0068768 A1) teaches maintaining a record of transport elements included in a chain in a section of a conveyor belt. (¶ 53-54, Fig. 10)
Engel (US 2018/0085788 A1) teaches a transportation and sorting system that includes a transport conveyor and tracking articles. (Abstract, Fig. 7)
Yang (US 2021/0192440 A1) teaches tracking inventory by associating identifiers of items with different stations as they are moved through a transportation route. (Abstract, Figs. 3B, 4)
Fenile (US 2025/0011105 A1) is directed to managing the loading of transport elements on a conveyor system. (Abstract)
Ahammer (US 10,865,054 B2) teaches maintaining a sorting order of objects on a conveyor system using linked vectors. (Abstract, Figs. 18-21)
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118