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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B: Figs. 8-11D, in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9 and 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species D: Fig. 1-7B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/2026.
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 (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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 9081057 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kim at al. discloses a paver feeder assembly (Examiner’s note: A paver is an article, and for examination purposes it has been considered as an article being handled: See MPEP section 211), comprising:
a support structure configured to support a plurality of pavers arranged in a stack (see attached annotated fig. 3); being
and an elevator configured to move the single paver from the support structure (see attached annotated fig. 3) and to release the single paver into a mounting tub (Note: Mobile unit 1, is capable to release the article at the desire place, which is not an innovative concept).
PNG
media_image1.png
660
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim at al. discloses all the limitations of the claim 1, it also discloses wherein the support structure is a flat bed (see attached annotated fig. 3), and the elevator is a moveable crane gantry (see attached annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kim at al. discloses all the limitations of the claim 2, it also discloses wherein the moveable crane gantry is configured to move in three axes (it can be seen in Fig. 1-3), See column 4, lines 38-41 and column 5, lines from 4-10).
Regarding claim 4, Kim at al. discloses all the limitations of the claim 2, it also discloses wherein the flat bed and the moveable crane gantry are mounted on a mobile unit (it can be seen in Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Kim at al. discloses a paver feeder system (Considered as an article handing system: see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
A mobile unit (Fig. 3);
a paver feeder assembly (see rejection of claim 1) mounted on the mobile unit (It can be seen in Fig. 1-3), the paver feeder assembly comprising:
a support structure configured to support a plurality of pavers arranged in a stack (see attached annotated fig. 3); and
an elevator configured to move the single paver from the support structure and to release the single paver into a mounting tub (for citation purpose see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim 10, it also discloses wherein the support structure is a flat bed (see attached annotated fig.3), and the elevator is a moveable crane gantry (see attached annotated fig.3) comprising a gripper attachment (Fig. 10, 100) with grabber end attachments (Fig. 10, 123).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. discloses all the limitations of the claim 10, it also discloses wherein the paver feeder system (see rejection of claim 1) dispenses a pre-determined number of pavers (note: that mobile unit of the prior art is capable of dispensing the pre-determined number of the articles, it can be seen in Fig. 3 is carrying 3 articles which has to be transferred from point A to B.) into the mounting tubs (Note: Mobile unit 1, is capable to release the article at the desire place, which is not an innovative concept).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses a method of dispensing pavers (considered as an article being handled: see rejection of claim1) in mounting tubs (see rejection of claim 1), comprising:
loading a stack of pavers onto a support structure;
separating a first paver of the stack of pavers;
lowering the first paver into a mounting tub;
separating a second paver of the stack of pavers; and lowering the second paver into the mounting tub on top of the first paver. (Mobile unit 1 of prior art is capable of performing listed step, which is not an innovative concept. Furthermore, it has been noted that, all these steps can be performed manually without requiring any types of machinery).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 15, it also discloses wherein the support structure is mounted on a mobile unit (it can be seen in Fig.1- 3).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. discloses all the limitation of the claim 16, it also discloses wherein the loading step is performed at a staging area (Note: Prior art is being silent about staging area; however, the staging area is required to load the articles which are being loaded on the support. Which is not an innovative concept).
Regarding claim 18-20, Kim et al. disclosed mobile unit which is capable of moving from point A to B. Furthermore, the claimed steps can be performed manually as well without requiring any machinery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited prior art Garcia Tercero (US 8151453 B2) discloses similar system or mobile unit of claim 1 and 10 (see Fig. 10) which can be modified to perform the method step of claim 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights