DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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 8, 10, and 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.
ISSUE 1: “AND/OR” AND MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS RENDER THE CLAIM SCOPE UNCLEAR (CLAIMS 8, 10, 11)
Claim 8 includes multiple alternative conditions using “and/or” and repeated optional phrasing (for example, “the energy supply element and/or the energy receiving element,” “can be moved into different rotational orientations or are or can be arranged in different rotational orientations,” and “when the at least one carriage is arranged in a receiving orientation and/or in a compact orientation”). The cumulative effect is that it is unclear, with reasonable certainty, which component(s) must be capable of rotation, which component(s) must actually be in different rotational orientations “along the guide element,” and under which operating conditions engagement must be achieved or maintained.
Claim 10 similarly employs multiple “and/or” alternatives (for example, “received and/or conveyed,” and an “and/or” construction tying together what must occur in the receiving orientation and what must occur in the compact orientation). The claim is unclear as to whether both receiving and conveying must be possible in the receiving orientation, and whether the compact orientation must necessarily reduce extension in the stated direction, or whether the compact orientation may exist without such reduction.
Claim 11 likewise uses alternative structures and mechanisms (for example, “rotary drive or a rotation guide—in particular, a slotted guide” and “by deflecting, raising, or lowering… and/or by rotating a guide element portion”). In view of these alternatives, it is unclear which specific structure(s) are required for the “rotation device” and which specific actuation mechanism(s) must be present and operative, thereby obscuring the metes and bounds of the claim.
ISSUE 2: RELATIVE/COMPARATIVE TERMINOLOGY WITHOUT OBJECTIVE BOUNDARIES (CLAIM 10)
Claim 10 recites that, “in the compact orientation, an extension of the at least one carriage in at least one direction—in particular, in a horizontal direction—is reduced compared to the extension in the receiving orientation.” This comparative language (“extension” and “reduced compared to”) is not accompanied, in the claim, by an objective baseline, reference frame, or measurement standard for determining when the “extension” is “reduced,” particularly where the claim also allows reduction in “at least one direction” while emphasizing (but not requiring) “in particular, in a horizontal direction.”
Accordingly, the scope is unclear as to what dimensional aspect(s) must be reduced (overall envelope, projection, width, maximum lateral extent, etc.), and by what amount or in what coordinate frame.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 - JP 2001-199537 A
REFERENCE 2 - DE 10 2005 001 641 A1
REFERENCE 3 - WO 2007/059785 A1
REFERENCE 4 - US 3,178,010
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.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, AND 16: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY REFERENCE 1.
Conveyor device for conveying workpieces—in particular, vehicle bodies—wherein the conveyor device comprises: at least one carriage for receiving and conveying the workpieces; and a guide device for guiding the at least one carriage, wherein the guide device includes a guide element on which the at least one carriage is guided in a sliding manner.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 1 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
With respect to “Conveyor device for conveying workpieces—in particular, vehicle bodies,” Reference 1 discloses a work transfer/transport apparatus for a processing line (e.g., a coating/pretreatment line) in which a workpiece (work 1, described as a motorcycle body) is conveyed along the conveyor (conveyor 2). A motorcycle body constitutes a “vehicle body,” and Reference 1 expressly addresses transport of workpieces through pretreatment, coating, and drying steps, which is consistent with “conveying workpieces.”
With respect to “wherein the conveyor device comprises: at least one carriage for receiving and conveying the workpieces,” Reference 1 discloses a carrier (carrier 3) that supports the workpiece (work 1). The carrier 3 includes a support arm (arm 12) and support stay (stay 14) by which the work 1 is supported and conveyed with the carrier along the conveyor 2. The carrier 3 therefore functions as the claimed “carriage” that receives (supports) and conveys the workpiece.
With respect to “and a guide device for guiding the at least one carriage,” Reference 1 discloses that the carrier 3 is guided and moved along the conveyor 2 (including along a movable section 4 that is part of the conveyor path). The conveyor structure provides the guiding function for the carrier.
With respect to “wherein the guide device includes a guide element on which the at least one carriage is guided in a sliding manner,” Reference 1 discloses that the carrier 3 is guided along the conveyor 2 and movable section 4 through interaction of (i) slit(s) 9 formed on the side surfaces of the conveyor and movable section and (ii) protrusions 10 of the carrier extending into the interior, the protrusions supporting rollers 11. The rollers 11 roll along internal surfaces of the conveyor 2 / movable section 4 to constrain the carrier’s motion along the conveyor path. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, being guided along a guide element by rolling contact (rollers 11) constitutes being “guided in a sliding manner” along that guide element, because the carriage is constrained to slide/translate along the guide element path.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 1.
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one carriage includes one or more traction units, each of the one or more traction units including traction rollers which roll on the guide element of the guide device.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one carriage includes one or more traction units,” Reference 1 discloses that the carrier 3 includes multiple roller-supported portions that interface with the conveyor guide structure. In particular, the carrier includes protrusions 10 that carry rollers 11, with rollers positioned at multiple corners (“four front and rear, upper and lower corners”). These roller-supported portions function as carriage “units” that interact with the guide element to support and guide the carrier along the conveyor path.
With respect to “each of the one or more traction units including traction rollers which roll on the guide element of the guide device,” Reference 1 discloses rollers 11 (i.e., rollers) that roll inside the conveyor 2 and movable section 4, thereby rolling on/against the guide element surfaces defining the conveyor path and guiding the carrier 3. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, rollers 11 are “traction rollers” because they are rollers on the carriage that roll along the guide element to enable translation of the carriage along the conveyor, regardless of whether they are actively driven or passive.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 2.
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the guide element is a square tube or includes a square tube.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the guide element is a square tube or includes a square tube,” Reference 1 discloses the conveyor 2 as having a rectangular cylindrical shape (i.e., a tube-like structure having a rectangular cross-section). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the present disclosure’s description of square/rectangular tube profiles, a rectangular tube-shaped conveyor housing/guide constitutes a “square tube” guide element or includes a square/rectangular tube guide element. The carrier 3 is guided relative to this tubular conveyor structure (conveyor 2 / movable section 4) via slit 9 and rollers 11.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 5.
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the conveyor device includes a rotation device by which the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations relative to the guide element.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 9 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the conveyor device includes a rotation device,” Reference 1 discloses a rotatable movable part 4 provided in a portion of the conveyor 2, where the movable part 4 is freely rotatable by a step motor 5 via a rotating shaft 6.
With respect to “by which the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations relative to the guide element,” Reference 1 discloses that operation of the step motor 5 rotates the rotating shaft 6 and thus rotates the movable part 4, and thereby rotates the work 1 supported on the carrier 3 into different postures/orientations, including floor conveyor posture, side conveyor posture (approximately 90° rotation), and overhead conveyor posture (approximately 180° rotation). Because the carrier 3 supports the work 1 through arm 12 and is guided along the conveyor 2 / movable part 4, the rotation mechanism changes the rotational orientation of the carriage/workpiece support relative to the guide element (the conveyor guide structure) at the location of the movable part 4.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 9.
Conveyor device according to claim 9, wherein the rotation device includes a rotary drive or a rotation guide—in particular, a slotted guide—by which the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations—in particular, by deflecting, raising, or lowering an end, facing away from the guide element, of the at least one carriage and/or by rotating a guide element portion of the guide element.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 11 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 11 depends from claim 9, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the rotation device includes a rotary drive,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 is rotatable by a step motor 5. A step motor is a type of rotary drive because it produces controlled rotational output (rotation of shaft 6).
With respect to “by which the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that by controlling the step motor 5, the work 1 supported on carrier 3 is rotated by approximately 90° to achieve a side conveyor posture, and by approximately 180° to achieve an overhead conveyor posture, among other intermediate angular positions.
With respect to the clause “and/or by rotating a guide element portion of the guide element,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 of the conveyor is a rotatable portion of the conveyor guide structure (i.e., a guide element portion). The rotational orientation change occurs by rotating this guide element portion (movable part 4) using the rotary drive (step motor 5 and shaft 6). Thus, even if Reference 1 does not emphasize a “slotted guide,” it satisfies claim 11 by disclosing a rotary drive and rotating a guide element portion.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 11.
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the guide element includes several guide element portions, wherein one or more of these guide element portions is fixed to support elements of the conveyor device in a rotationally-fixed manner, and wherein at least one guide element portion is to be able to rotate.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 12 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 12 depends from claim 1, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the guide element includes several guide element portions,” Reference 1 discloses that the conveyor guide structure includes at least (i) a conveyor portion 2 and (ii) a movable part 4 provided in a part of the length of the conveyor 2. These constitute multiple portions along the guide path.
With respect to “wherein one or more of these guide element portions is fixed to support elements of the conveyor device in a rotationally-fixed manner,” Reference 1 discloses that the step motor 5 is fixed in the conveyor 2 and the rotating shaft 6 extends to and is fixed at its tip to a vertical wall 8 that is part of the conveyor structure. The non-rotating portions of the conveyor (conveyor 2 outside the movable part) are stationary, i.e., fixed relative to the installation, and thus rotationally fixed relative to the support/structural elements of the conveyor line.
With respect to “and wherein at least one guide element portion is to be able to rotate,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that the movable part 4 is freely rotatable and rotates synchronously with the rotating shaft 6. Thus, at least one portion (movable part 4) is rotatable relative to other portions that are not rotated.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 12.
Conveyor device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one guide element portion is rotatable about its longitudinal axis and/or central axis.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 13 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one guide element portion is rotatable about its longitudinal axis and/or central axis,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 rotates about the axis of the rotating shaft 6 which passes through the movable part 4 and is oriented along the conveyor’s length direction. This axis corresponds to a longitudinal/central axis of the movable portion (guide element portion) because rotation of the conveyor portion occurs around that central shaft axis, which defines the rotational centerline.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 13.
Conveyor device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one guide element portion is rotatably mounted, by one or more bearings, including annular bearings, plain bearings, and/or ball bearings, on one or more guide element portions which are rotationally fixed.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 14 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 14 depends from claim 12, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one guide element portion is rotatably mounted, by one or more bearings,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 is “freely rotatable” by the step motor 5 through the rotating shaft 6, and the shaft 6 extends through the movable part 4 and is fixed to a stationary vertical wall 8 of the conveyor structure. For the movable part 4 and/or shaft 6 to rotate relative to stationary conveyor structure (including wall 8 and the remaining conveyor 2), there must necessarily be a rotatable mounting interface that allows rotation under load while constraining other degrees of freedom. A plain bearing (bushing), annular bearing surface, or ball-bearing assembly is an archetypal structure used to provide such “freely rotatable” mounting. Because claim 14 expressly includes plain bearings and annular bearings, and because the claim does not require any particular bearing subtype beyond “one or more bearings,” the rotatable mounting disclosed (and necessarily present) in Reference 1 anticipates the bearing limitation.
With respect to “on one or more guide element portions which are rotationally fixed,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 rotates relative to the remainder of the conveyor 2 (stationary portions) and relative to stationary structural portions including the vertical wall 8 to which shaft 6 is fixed. Thus, the rotatable portion is mounted relative to rotationally fixed portions of the guide element/guide structure.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 14.
Conveyor device according to claim 12, wherein the at least one guide element portion which is to be able to rotate forms a rotation position of the conveyor device or is arranged in the rotation position of the conveyor device, wherein, in the rotation position, the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations relative to the guide element.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 15 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
Claim 15 depends from claim 12, which is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one guide element portion which is to be able to rotate forms a rotation position of the conveyor device or is arranged in the rotation position,” Reference 1 discloses that a movable part 4 is provided in a part of the length of the conveyor 2 and is rotatable. This movable part 4 is the location/portion where rotation is performed, i.e., the “rotation position” along the conveyor line.
With respect to “wherein, in the rotation position, the at least one carriage can be moved into different rotational orientations relative to the guide element,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that by rotating the movable part 4 using the step motor 5 and shaft 6, the work 1 supported on carrier 3 is rotated into different postures (e.g., side conveyor posture and overhead conveyor posture). Thus, at the movable part 4 (rotation position), the carriage/work support assembly is moved into different rotational orientations relative to the guide element/guide structure.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 15.
Treatment system for the treatment of workpieces—in particular, for surface treatment of vehicle bodies—wherein the treatment system includes a conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the carriage includes a workpiece holder for receiving one or more workpieces, and wherein the workpiece holder is to be rotatable for bringing the one or more workpieces into and out of a treatment container.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 16 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) OVER REFERENCE 1
With respect to “Treatment system for the treatment of workpieces—in particular, for surface treatment of vehicle bodies,” Reference 1 discloses a treatment line in which workpieces are processed through pretreatment and subsequent coating/drying steps. Reference 1 includes pretreatment tanks used for dipping pretreatment, which constitutes surface treatment.
With respect to “wherein the treatment system includes a conveyor device according to claim 1,” Reference 1 discloses the conveyor 2 and carrier 3 arrangement as analyzed above for claim 1.
With respect to “wherein the carriage includes a workpiece holder for receiving one or more workpieces,” Reference 1 discloses that the carrier 3 includes a support structure including an arm 12, a bent tip 13, and a support stay 14 by which the workpiece 1 is supported. This support structure functions as a workpiece holder because it receives/supports the workpiece during conveyance and processing.
With respect to “and wherein the workpiece holder is to be rotatable for bringing the one or more workpieces into and out of a treatment container,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable part 4 is rotated by step motor 5 and shaft 6 so that the workpiece 1 supported by carrier 3 is rotated laterally into a selected pretreatment tank (e.g., resin pretreatment tank 20 or metal pretreatment tank 30) for dipping, and then rotated back out of the tank to return to the neutral/floor conveyor posture. The pretreatment tanks 20 and 30 are “treatment container(s).” The arm/support structure that holds the workpiece is rotatable (as part of the carrier/holder assembly) to bring the workpiece into and out of the treatment container.
Accordingly, Reference 1 discloses each limitation of claim 16.
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, AND 10: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER THE REFERENCES IDENTIFIED BELOW
======
CLAIM 3: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Conveyor device according to claim 2, wherein different traction rollers are used to bear the load in different rotational orientations of the carriage, and for lateral guidance along the guide element.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 3 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
With respect to the limitation “wherein different traction rollers are used to bear the load in different rotational orientations of the carriage,” Reference 1 discloses that the carrier/workpiece assembly is rotated into different postures by rotation of the movable part 4 using step motor 5 and shaft 6 (e.g., floor posture, side posture, overhead posture). In Reference 1, the carrier 3 is guided by multiple rollers 11 positioned at different corners of the carrier/protrusion structure. In different rotational orientations, different ones of those rollers 11 would become the primary load-bearing rollers relative to gravity and the contacting guide surfaces, because the carrier and/or guide channel orientation is changed at the rotatable movable part 4.
Reference 3 further teaches the specific engineering approach of providing wheel/roller sets and guide rollers that bear load and guide a cart in more than one operational orientation. In particular, Reference 3 discloses a cart (4) with wheels (12) and guide roller(s) (16) that interact with different support surfaces (18, 20) of a rail (2) depending on whether the cart is in one orientation or another (e.g., a “normal” orientation or an “inverted/overhead” orientation).
With respect to the limitation “and for lateral guidance along the guide element,” Reference 1’s multiple rollers 11 constrain the carrier 3 within the conveyor guide channel defined by conveyor 2 and slit(s) 9, thereby providing lateral guidance.
Reference 3 explicitly teaches using guide roller(s) (16) to provide lateral guidance relative to the rail (2) while the load-bearing function is provided via wheels (12) on support surfaces (18, 20), including during operation in different orientations.
Thus, the combined teachings of Reference 1 (rotatable conveyor portion producing multiple rotational orientations for the carrier/workpiece) and Reference 3 (distinct roller functions for load support and lateral guidance in multiple orientations) collectively teach the subject matter of claim 3.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 3
It would have been obvious to modify the carrier (3) of Reference 1 so that different rollers (11) assume load-bearing and lateral-guidance roles in different rotational orientations created by rotation of the movable part (4) using the step motor (5), because Reference 3 teaches multi-orientation cart guidance using dedicated load wheels and guide rollers on corresponding rail surfaces. This is a predictable design choice to maintain stable guidance and prevent derailment/interference when the carriage is rotated into different postures.
======
CLAIM 4: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the guide element is a round tube or includes the round tube.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 4 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to the limitation “wherein the guide element is a round tube or includes the round tube,” Reference 1 discloses a conveyor 2 (including movable part 4) that is described as a rectangular cylindrical structure; Reference 1 does not explicitly require that the guide element be a round tube.
Reference 4 teaches that conveyor rail sections (11, 12) may be formed as pipe or tubing (11a), i.e., a round tubular rail/guide element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the guide element/guide structure of Reference 1 (conveyor 2 / movable part 4) to be implemented as, or to include, a round tubular guide element as taught by Reference 4, while maintaining the remainder of Reference 1’s carrier guidance and rotation features.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 4
It would have been obvious to implement the guide element of Reference 1 as a round tube (or to include a round tube) because Reference 4 teaches using pipe/tubing as a conveyor rail form factor and such tubular rails are well-suited for guided rolling contact. The substitution is a straightforward use of a known alternative rail profile to achieve the predictable result of guided carriage travel on a tubular guide.
======
CLAIMS 6 AND 7: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Conveyor device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one carriage includes a traction drive and wherein the conveyor device includes an energy supply device for supplying drive energy to the traction drive.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one carriage includes a traction drive,” Reference 1 discloses a carrier 3 that is moved along the conveyor 2 by driving means (Reference 1 indicates the carrier is moved in the traveling direction by appropriate driving means). Reference 1 does not explicitly detail the drive as being carried onboard the carrier 3 itself.
Reference 2 teaches a conveyor/treatment transport system in which a trolley/vehicle running on a single travel way (5) includes a drive (8) associated with the running gear/trolley unit(s) (7).
With respect to “and wherein the conveyor device includes an energy supply device for supplying drive energy to the traction drive,” Reference 2 teaches supplying electrical power via conductor rails/power rails (6) arranged along the travel way (5), with current collector(s) (9) on the moving trolley/vehicle.
Accordingly, Reference 2 teaches both a traction drive located on the moving conveyance unit (drive 8 on running gear 7) and an energy supply device providing drive energy via rail (6) and collector (9). Combining this with Reference 1 yields the subject matter of claim 6.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 6
It would have been obvious to provide the carrier (3) of Reference 1 with an onboard traction drive and to supply it via an energy supply device, because Reference 2 teaches rail-guided independent vehicles having a drive (8) and receiving power from conductor rails (6) via current collectors (9). Applying Reference 2’s self-propelled, powered-rail approach to Reference 1 yields predictable benefits in controllability and continuous operation through the processing line.
Conveyor device according to claim 6, wherein the energy supply device includes an energy supply element which extends along the guide element of the guide device and can be moved into engagement with or is in engagement with an energy receiving element of the carriage.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
With respect to “wherein the energy supply device includes an energy supply element which extends along the guide element of the guide device,” Reference 2 teaches conductor rails/power rails (6) disposed along the travel way (5), i.e., extending along the path/guide by which the trolley/vehicle is guided.
With respect to “and can be moved into engagement with or is in engagement with an energy receiving element of the carriage,” Reference 2 teaches current collector(s) (9) on the trolley/vehicle that receive power from the conductor rails (6). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the conductor rail (6) and current collector (9) constitute an energy supply element and energy receiving element, respectively, and they are in engagement (electrical contact engagement) during operation.
Thus, the combination of Reference 1 (carrier guided on guide element) as modified per Reference 2 (power rail/collector) teaches claim 7.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 7
It would have been obvious to implement the energy supply device in Reference 1 using an energy supply element extending along the guide element and an energy receiving element on the carriage, because Reference 2 expressly teaches conductor rails (6) along the travel way (5) engaged by current collectors (9) on the moving vehicle to deliver power to the drive (8). This is a known, reliable architecture that predictably provides continuous electrical energy to a moving carriage.
======
CLAIM 8: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Conveyor device according to claim 7, wherein the energy supply element and/or the energy receiving element can be moved into different rotational orientations or are or can be arranged in different rotational orientations along the guide element—in particular, in such a way that the energy supply element and the energy receiving element can be moved into engagement with one another or are in engagement with one another when the at least one carriage is arranged in a receiving orientation and/or in a compact orientation.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 8 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Claim 7 is rejected under § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 as set forth above.
Reference 1 teaches rotating the carrier/workpiece support into multiple rotational orientations using the rotatable movable part 4 driven by step motor 5 and shaft 6 (e.g., floor, side, overhead postures). This establishes that the carriage (carrier 3) is intended to operate in different rotational orientations relative to the guide element at least at the rotation position.
Reference 2 teaches supplying power using conductor rails (6) along the travel way (5) and current collectors (9) on the moving trolley/vehicle, which are in engagement to deliver drive energy.
With respect to the additional limitation that “the energy supply element and/or the energy receiving element can be moved into different rotational orientations or are or can be arranged in different rotational orientations along the guide element … such that … engagement … occurs when the carriage is arranged in a receiving orientation and/or in a compact orientation,” Reference 3 teaches a cart/rail system designed to operate in more than one orientation while maintaining guided support and (where implemented) ongoing electrical pickup through rail-mounted conductor(s) and cart-mounted sliding contacts (e.g., conductor rails 36/38/40 and sliding contacts 30/32/34) in a rail 2/cart 4 environment.
Thus, the combined teachings support arranging and/or configuring the power-rail/collector engagement so that it remains engaged as the carriage is placed into different orientations (e.g., the receiving vs compact orientation), including by arranging the supply/receiving elements in corresponding rotational positions around the guide element/rail cross-section and/or providing a movable collector that maintains contact as orientation changes.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 8
It would have been obvious to arrange the conductor rail (6) and/or current collector (9) of Reference 2 so that electrical engagement is maintained while Reference 1 rotates the carrier/workpiece support via the movable part (4) and step motor (5), because continuous power delivery during orientation changes is a predictable requirement for a self-propelled carriage. Reference 3 evidences that rail/cart systems are designed to operate in multiple orientations with corresponding support/guidance interfaces, and the same design logic predictably applies to the placement/orientation of power pickup interfaces.
======
CLAIM 10: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Conveyor device according to claim 9, wherein the at least one carriage can be moved selectively into a receiving orientation and a compact orientation by the rotation device, wherein at least one workpiece can be received and/or conveyed in the receiving orientation by the at least one carriage and/or wherein, in the compact orientation, an extension of the at least one carriage in at least one direction—in particular, in a horizontal direction—is reduced compared to the extension in the receiving orientation.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM 10 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
Claim 10 depends from claim 9. Claim 9 is anticipated by Reference 1 as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein the at least one carriage can be moved selectively into a receiving orientation and a compact orientation by the rotation device,” Reference 1 teaches that the rotation device (step motor 5 rotating shaft 6 and movable part 4) selectively rotates the workpiece support from a floor conveyor posture (neutral/basic) into other postures including a side conveyor posture (about 90° rotation) and an overhead conveyor posture (about 180° rotation), with the selection of posture controlled by the rotation control of the step motor 5. Thus, Reference 1 already teaches selective movement between at least two distinct rotational orientations of the carriage/workpiece support.
With respect to “wherein at least one workpiece can be received and/or conveyed in the receiving orientation by the at least one carriage,” Reference 1 teaches that the workpiece 1 is supported by carrier 3 (arm 12 and stay 14) and conveyed along the conveyor 2 in the floor conveyor posture (neutral/basic posture) between processes. This posture is a “receiving” (workpiece-carrying) orientation because it is the posture in which the work is supported for conveyance along the line.
With respect to “and/or wherein, in the compact orientation, an extension of the at least one carriage in at least one direction—in particular, in a horizontal direction—is reduced compared to the extension in the receiving orientation,” Reference 1 teaches that, when the carrier/workpiece is rotated to side conveyor posture or overhead posture, the spatial envelope/contour of the carrier/workpiece relative to the conveyor changes. A 90° rotation necessarily changes the projection of the carrier/workpiece support geometry in the horizontal plane, and can be used to achieve a reduced horizontal extension in one of the rotated postures depending on the arm/support geometry.
Reference 3 further teaches the design motivation of configuring carts/rails to operate in differing orientations (e.g., normal vs inverted) to accommodate spatial constraints and clearance, which inherently corresponds to selecting an operationally “compact” orientation to reduce interference with surrounding structures while still enabling guided travel.
Accordingly, Reference 1 (selective rotation into multiple postures used during conveyance and processing) as informed by Reference 3’s multi-orientation clearance-driven cart design teaches the subject matter of claim 10.
MOTIVATION STATEMENT FOR CLAIM 10
It would have been obvious to use Reference 1’s selectively rotatable postures (created by step motor 5 acting on the movable part 4) as a receiving orientation and a compact/clearance orientation, because Reference 3 teaches that providing multiple operational orientations of a cart on a rail is a known solution to clearance and packaging constraints. Selecting one of the rotated postures to reduce horizontal envelope is a predictable use of Reference 1’s existing rotation capability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613