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 .
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 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, 35, 36, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lutz 5,402,878.
In Re Claim 22, Lutz discloses a slat for a reciprocating slat conveyor, the slat comprising: an elongated slat body (164) having an upper surface (top surface of 172, Fig. 8) configured for supporting a load placed on the slat, a bottom surface (bottom surface of 172, Fig. 8), opposite to the upper surface, a first side surface (174) and a second side surface (174), opposite to the first side surface, wherein an outside surface (surface at longitudinal ends of bottom surface) of at least at one of the bottom surface, first side surface and second side surface of the elongated slat body is at least partially provided with a wear member (170) (wear member 170 extends along the length of stat 164, Column 9, Lines 48-51 being provided to the outside surface of the bottom surface at the outside of the length of 164/172).
In Re Claim 23, as best understood, Lutz discloses wherein at least a part of each of the first side surface and the second side surface is provided with a wear member (170).
In Re Claim 25, Lutz discloses wherein the elongated slat body comprises a top wall (172), and a left and right side wall (174) arranged at a longitudinal side of the top wall and extending downwards therefrom. (fig. 8)
In Re Claim 26, Lutz discloses wherein each of the left and right side walls comprises a first wall part connected to the top wall and extending substantially perpendicular thereto, and a second wall part (176) arranged at the end of the first wall part facing away from the top wall and extending towards the second wall part of the other one of the left and right side walls. (Fig. 8)
In Re Claim 32, Lutz discloses wherein the wear member is a wear strip or wear profile (170). (Fig. 8)
In Re Claim 35, Lutz discloses wherein the wear member is arranged removably at least one of the upper surface, bottom surface, first side surface and second side surface. (Fig. 8)
In Re Claim 36, Lutz discloses wherein the wear member is manufactured from a material selected from the group comprising steel, wear aluminum, aluminum, plastics or the like. (Column 9, Lines 43-53)
In Re Claim 40, Lutz discloses reciprocating slat conveyor comprising a support structure (52) or subdeck, multiple parallel elongate slats (164) according to claim 22, that are supported by the support structure and that are slidable in the longitudinal direction with respect to the support structure, slide bearings (180) between the support structure and the slats, and a drive mechanism (16) for reciprocating sliding movement of the slats with respect to the support structure.
In Re Claim 41, Lutz discloses trailer or truck comprising a reciprocating slat conveyor according to claim 40. (Column 3, Lines 37-45)
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.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Foster 5,355,994.
In Re Claim 24, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein at least a part of the upper surface is provided with a wear member.
However, Foster teaches wherein at least a part of the upper surface is provided with a wear member (42). (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an upper surface provided with a wear member in the slat of Lutz as taught by Foster with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make a more durable reciprocating conveyor.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Foster 5,355,994.
In Re Claims 27-29, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 26 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein at least a part of the upper surface is provided with a wear member.
However, Foster teaches wherein the wear member (left leg of 15, Fig. 3) is arranged at the first wall part (22) of one of the left and right side walls, and a further wear member (right leg of 15, Fig. 3) is arranged at the first wall part (20) of the other of the left and right side walls; and wherein the first wall part of the left and right side walls has a height, and the wear member and the further wear member extend over substantially the complete height of the respective first wall part; (Fig. 3) and wherein the first wall part of the left and right side walls has a height, and the wear member extends over substantially the complete height of the respective first wall part and the further wear member extends over a part of the height of the respective first wall part. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use add a further wear member in the slat of Lutz as taught by Foster with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make a more durable reciprocating conveyor.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Foster 5,355,994.
In Re Claims 30-31, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 26 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein the wear member comprises a U-shaped wear body having a bottom portion and two legs standing upright from the bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion is arranged at the second wall parts of the left and right side walls and the two legs are arranged at least a part of the first wall parts of the left and right side walls.
However, Foster teaches wherein the wear member comprises a U-shaped wear body (15) having a bottom portion (portion along the bottom of the horizontal portion of 12) and two legs (Legs of 15, Fig. 3) standing upright from the bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion is arranged at the second wall parts of the left and right side walls and the two legs are arranged at least a part of the first wall parts of the left (22) and right (20) side walls; and wherein the wear member comprises an inverted U-shaped wear body (15) having a bottom portion (portion along the bottom of the horizontal portion of 12) and two legs (Legs of 15, Fig. 3) standing upright from the bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion is arranged at the top wall and the two legs are arranged at least a part of the first wall parts of the left (22) and right (20) side walls; (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use add a further wear member in the slat of Lutz as taught by Foster with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make a more durable reciprocating conveyor.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Foster 5,355,994.
In Re Claims 33, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein the wear member is a L-shaped wear strip or L-shaped wear profile.
However, Foster teaches wherein the wear member is a L-shaped wear strip or L-shaped wear profile (Leg of 15, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an L-shaped wear member in the slat of Lutz as taught by Foster with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make the wear member more rigid.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Stuart et al. 2018/0072506.
In Re Claim 34, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein the wear member is substantially beam- shaped, such that the slat is located within the wear member.
However, Stuart et al. teach wherein the wear member (20, Fig. 4) is substantially beam- shaped, such that the slat (18) is located within the wear member. (Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a beam shaped wear member in the slat of Lutz as taught by Stuart et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to serve as a side bearing with reduced friction.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Foster 5,355,994.
In Re Claim 37, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach wherein the wear member is arranged at the elongated slat body by welding, gluing, riveting, screwing, clamping or the like.
However, Foster teaches wherein the wear member (42) is arranged at the elongated slat body by welding, gluing, riveting, screwing (48, Fig. 2), clamping or the like .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to arrange the wear member at the slat body by screwing in the slat of Lutz as taught by Foster with a reasonable expectation for success in order to restrict movement of the wear member longitudinally along its length.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz and in view of Feigner et al. 2014/0183004.
In Re Claims 38 and 39, Lutz teaches the slat of Claim 22 as discussed above.
Lutz does not teach provided with an end cap mounted at one or both of the outer ends of the slat.
However, Feigner et al. teach the slat is provided with an end cap (vertical cap at end of 12, Fig. 1) mounted at one or both of the outer ends of the slat; and wherein the end cap is connected to the wear member or to the elongated slat body solely. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to ad and end cap in the slat of Lutz as taught by Feigner et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent debris from moving into the slat travel path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s remarks concerning Lutz not teaching a wear member on the outside of the bottom surface the Examiner notes that wear member 170 extends along the length of slat 164, See Column 9, Lines 48-51 the wear member being provided to the outside surface of the bottom surface at the outside of the length of 164/172.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652