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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-27 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21, and 25-27 are currently amended.
Claims 10 and 15 are canceled.
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(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegmund et al. (US 4053384), herein after will be referred to as Siegmund, in view of Moon et al. (KR 20130036801 A), herein after will be referred to as Moon, and in further view of Rudy et al. (US 10829347 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Rudy.
Regarding Claim 1, Siegmund teaches a positioning system for an anode replacement system (see at least Siegmund, Col 4 lines 10-14: “FIG. 3 also illustrates the latching tool 70 in the process of grasping a support rod 150 of an anode block…”);
the positioning system comprising: a movable support having a longitudinal axis (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 16-22: “…an overhead traveling assembly indicated generally by the reference character 12 which comprises a bridge structure 14 provided with trolley assemblies 16 and 18 at its opposite ends which are supported on the rails 20 and 22 provided to allow the assembly 12 to travel lengthwise of the row of furnaces 10... Supported for longitudinal movement along one side of the bridge structure 14 is the trolley structure 32 and supported along the opposite side of the bridge structure 14 for longitudinal movement…”; Bridge structure travels along rails equivalent to a movable support moving on a longitudinal axis);
a first positioning member movably mounted to the support, wherein the first positioning member comprises a first axis and a second axis, and is configured to move along the longitudinal axis of the support with the first axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 31-35: “Supported for longitudinal movement along one side of the bridge structure 14 is the trolley structure 32 and supported along the opposite side of the bridge structure 14 for longitudinal movement.”; see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 36-41: “These two rails 108 and 110 cooperate with the running wheels 112, 114 and 116 of the trolley assembly 32, it being understood that the wheels 114, for example, may be rotatably driven to traverse the trolley 32 back and forth along the length of the bridge section 14.”; see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 42-46: “Similarly, the other section 104 carries rails 118 and 120 which cooperate with the wheels 122, 124 and 126 of the trolley 34 so that the utility crane may be traversed along the length of the bridge section 14 on the opposite side thereof from the trolley 32.”; A trolley structure that moves on a first axis mounted and moves longitudinally along the main bridge support and the utility crane moving transversely on a second axis);
wherein the anode replacement system is connected to the…positioning member (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 62-68: “The arm 62 carries a latch tool 70 and also a wrench 72, both preferably movable according to arrow A, the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block and the tool 72 is adapted to release and tighten the anode block clamping assembly.”; The arm that carries the tools is part of the overall assembly of the trolley structure (first positioning member)).
Siegmund does not explicitly teach a second positioning member mounted to the first positioning member and configured to move transversely to the first axis of the first positioning member and wherein the…system is connected to the second positioning member.
However, Moon teaches a trolley mounted on a conveyor (first positioning member), moving transversely along a second rail on the upper portion of the conveyor ([0032]-[0033]). The trolley moves in the width direction that is perpendicular to the conveyor’s longitudinal travel direction. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations of “ a second positioning member mounted to the first positioning member and configured to move transversely to the first axis of the first positioning member” because the trolley is mounted on a conveyor and moves transversely along the second rail relative to the conveyor’s longitudinal axis. Furthermore, connecting Seigmund’s anode replacement tool to Moon’s trolley (the second positioning member) yields the limitation “where the anode replacement system is connected to the second positioning member” because a POSITA would recognize that mounting the anode replacement system on the transversely moving second member provides an independent two axis positioning system where the first member handles coarse longitudinal travel and the second member provides transverse adjustment for fine alignment.
Siegmund and Moon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of overhead crane systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Siegmund’s positioning system by adding Moon’s second positioning member (trolley) mounted on the first positioning member and to connect the anode replacement tools to the second positioning member based on the motivation to achieve a controlled precise positioning system of the anode replacement tools, as explicitly taught by Moon “the control unit 140 controls at least one of the unloading operation unit 110 and the traveling unit 107 under the same condition so that at least one of the moving speeds of the unloading operation unit 110 and the crane 100 is decelerated stepwise.” [0047]. Moon’s stepwise deceleration demonstrates that the second positioning member is designed for controlled, precise final approach required for anode placement. This modification would predictably result in an improved positioning accuracy by providing independent two axis adjustment where the first member handles coarse longitudinal travel along the furnace row while the second member provides fine transverse alignment, eliminating the need to reposition the entire bridge for lateral corrections. See MPEP § 2143 – Combining known elements (Sigmund’s anode replacement crane with Moon’s trolley) by known methods (mounting a second trolley on the first for transverse movement) yields predictable results (two axis fine positioning of anode replacement tools).
Siegmund and Moon combination does not explicitly teach a vision system configured to obtain positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement system; and a control system configured to control the movement of the anode replacement system based on the positional data from the vision system.
However, Rudy discloses an optical detection system for a lift crane that detects crane components, loads, and surrounding objects. Rudy teaches an optical detection system which captures images and detects various objects including crane components, loads, markers, and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in the crane’s vicinity (Col 5 lines 51-55). The system analyzes detected objects to determine their positions (Col 8 lines 56-59). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a vision system configured to obtain positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement system because the optical detection system detects and determines positions of crane components (which, in the combination, includes the anode replacement system) and objects in the crane’s vicinity (the surrounding environment), thereby obtaining positional data of both the equipment and its surroundings. Rudy further teaches that the optical detection system communicates with crane control system to control crane operations based on the optical detection data (Col 6 lines 17-19). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of a control system configured to control the movement of the anode replacement system based on the positional data from the vision system because the control system receives data from the optical detection system (vision system) and controls crane operations (including movement) which necessitates the control system controlling the crane movement based on vision derived from the positional data.
Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of overhead crane systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of the optical detection system and crane control system as taught by Rudy, based on the motivation to automate the alignment of anode replacement tools and to improve safety. Rudy explicitly teaches “…the optical detection system 120 is configured to detect, in a captured image, various objects such as crane components, loads, markers and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in a vicinity of the crane 10.” (Col 5 lines 51-55). A POSITA would be motivated to add vision-based positioning control to reduce reliance on manual operator visibility in a harsh operating environment and improve the precision by using machine vision rather than human observation for final positioning, the exact problem identified in the applicant’s specification (Page 1-2). This modification would predictably result in an automated or semi-automated positioning anode replacement system with higher accuracy and repeatability than a manual operator control. See MPEP § 2143 – Combining known elements (Siegmund and Moon anode replacement crane with Rudy’s optical detection and crane control system) by known methods (integrating vision-based positioning sensing with crane controls) yields predictable results (vision guided crane positioning for anode replacement).
Regarding Claim 2, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund does not explicitly teach the second positioning member is configured to move perpendicularly to the first axis of the first positioning member.
However, Moon teaches the second positioning member is configured to move perpendicularly to the first axis of the first positioning member (see at least Moon, Para [0032-0033]: “…the trolley 112 moves along the second rail 103a provided on the upper portion of the conveying portion 114 installed in the width direction on the first rail 103.”). The trolley moving along a second rail is explicitly described as being installed in the width direction on the conveying portion (the first positioning member), which moves longitudinally. On a gantry-style crane, it is implied that the movement in the width direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to orient Moon’s second positioning member (trolley) to move perpendicular to the first positioning member’s first axis because Moon explicitly teaches the trolley traveling in the width direction on the second rail ([0032]-[0033]), perpendicular to the conveyor’s longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the first positioning member is configured to be moved along the longitudinal axis of the support by one or more mechanisms configured to slide, push and/or pull the first positioning member (see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 36-41: “These two rails 108 and 110 cooperate with the running wheels 112, 114 and 116 of the trolley assembly 32, it being understood that the wheels 114, for example, may be rotatably driven to traverse the trolley 32 back and forth along the length of the bridge section 14.”; The first positioning member uses wheels on rails driven by a motor as a mechanism that slides the member along the support).
Siegmund does not explicitly teach the second position member is configured to be moved transversely to the first axis of the first positioning member by one or more mechanisms configured to slide, push and/or pull the second positioning member.
However, Moon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second position member is configured to be moved transversely to the first axis of the first positioning member by one or more mechanisms configured to slide, push and/or pull the second positioning member (see at least Moon, Para [0032-0033]: “the trolley 112 moves along the second rail 103a provided on the upper portion of the conveying portion 114 installed in the width direction on the first rail 103.”). Moons teaches that the trolley (second positioning member) “moves along the second rail” in the width direction implying a sliding mechanism. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the trolley moves along a rail in the transverse direction constituting a sliding mechanism. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of the trolley on a second rail as taught by Moon based on the motivation to provide controlled transverse movement using the same sliding mechanism that in the first positioning member of Siegmund. This modification would predictably result in both positioning members employing rail guided sliding mechanism with controlled speed for precision positioning.
Regarding Claim 4, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the first positioning member is a first trolley (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 31-32: “Supported for longitudinal movement along one side of the bridge structure 14 is the trolley structure 32…”).
Siegmund does not explicitly teach the second positioning member is a second trolley.
However, Moon, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second positioning member is a second trolley (see at least Moon, Para [0033]: “the trolley 112 moves along the second rail 103a provided on the upper portion of the conveying portion 114 installed in the width direction on the first rail 103.”). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the based system to incorporate the teachings of Moon’s trolley as a second trolley mounted on the first positioning member based on the motivation to provide a dual-trolley configuration for independent two axis positioning. This modification would predictably result in the first and second trolleys operating on their respective rail systems with controlled speed for precision positioning.
Regarding Claim 5, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches at least one drive mechanism comprising one or more motors configured to move the support, first positioning member (see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 34-41: “These two rails 108 and 110 cooperate with the running wheels 112, 114 and 116 of the trolley assembly 32, it being understood that the wheels 114, for example, may be rotatably driven to traverse the trolley 32 back and forth along the length of the bridge section 14.”; The rotatably driven wheels moving along the first member implies the usage of a motor driven mechanism).
Regarding Claim 7, Siegmund and Moon remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the support is configured to move rapidly in a horizontal and/or vertical plane (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 16-18: “an overhead traveling assembly indicated generally by the reference character 12 which comprises a bridge structure 14 provided with trolley assemblies 16 and 18 at its opposite ends which are supported on the rails 20 and 22 provided to allow the assembly 12 to travel lengthwise of the row of furnaces 10.”; The Examiner interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the servicing of an entire row of furnaces requires rapid movement for traveling long-distances between work sections).
Regarding Claim 8, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the first positioning member and/or a second positioning member comprise a plurality of positional markers.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first positioning member and/or a second positioning member comprise a plurality of positional markers (see at least Rudy, Col 7-8 lines 60-7: “…the object detected by the optical 60 detection computer 122 may be the marker 142 or target (see, for example, FIG. 8) …The marker 142 may be disposed on an object, such as a crane component, load or remotely positioned object.”). Rudy explicitly teaches placing markers on a crane component to assist in detection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s positional markers on the positioning members of the crane to assist with tracking the crane component’s location in real time based on the motivation to eanble independent position tracking of each crane component in the two-axis positioning system. This provides the benefit of operational safety to easily track and locate the components of the crane.
Regarding Claim 9, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy as applied above in Claim 8. . Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the plurality of positional markers is selected from the group comprising: barcodes, data matrix codes, quick response codes and/or colour codes.
Rudy further teaches the plurality of positional markers is selected from the group comprising: barcodes, data matrix codes, quick response codes and/or colour codes (see at least Rudy, Col 7-8 lines 65-7 : The marker 142 may be, for example, a pattern, 65 such as horizontal or crisscrossing lines, a coating having a particular color to distinguish the object from the background, a specific shape, a light, a specific identifier that is distinguishable from the surroundings, or some combination thereof.”). Rudy explicitly teaches using colors and patterns on the positional markers. Barcodes, QR codes and data matrix codes are well-known examples of having specific patterns such as horizontal or crisscrossing lines. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s patterned line and color-coded markers as the positional marks on the positioning members based on the motivation to provide high contrast visual identifiers detectable by the optical detection system. This modification would predictably result in positional markers that can be read by the machine and distinguishable from the environmental background for reliable position detection.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 1. The prior art combination of Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the vision system is configured to detect at least one of the plurality of positional markers to accurately locate and/or move the position of the support, first positioning member and/or a second positioning member.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the sensor system is configured to detect at least one of the plurality of positional markers to accurately locate and/or move the position of the support, first positioning member and/or a second positioning member (see at least Rudy, Col 7 lines 62-65: “Detection of a readily visible marker 142 in the captured image may assist in detection of a crane component or other object on which the marker 142 is disposed.”; see at least Rudy, Col 6 lines 17-19: “…the optical detection system 120 may also communicate with the crane control system 20 to control the various crane operations in a desired manner…”). Rudy explicitly teaches that the optical detection system detects markers in captured images to assist in detection of crane components and communicates with the crane control system to control crane operations. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s marker detection to assist in crane operations based on the motivation to provide position references accurately in locating and moving the positioning members providing the benefit of an improved feedback system for precise real-time tracking and control of the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the first positioning member is configured to support at least a component of the anode replacement system (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 62-68: “The arm 62 carries a latch tool 70 and also a wrench 72, both preferably movable according to arrow A, the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block and the tool 72 is adapted to release and tighten the anode block clamping assembly.”; The arm that carries the tools is part of the overall assembly of the trolley structure (first positioning member)).
Regarding Claim 13, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the first positioning member comprises a rotatable platform configured to support at a component of the anode replacement system (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 44-47: “…the latter of which is rotatable with respect to the section 46 under the control of a drive assembly 47 mounted on section 46 and in mesh with the gear 50 which is attached to the upper end of the tubular section 48.”; see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 62-68: “The arm 62 carries a latch tool 70 and also a wrench 72, both preferably movable according to arrow A, the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block and the tool 72 is adapted to release and tighten the anode block clamping assembly.”). Siegmund explicitly teaches a rotatable section that functions as a platform mounted on the first positioning member (the trolley) and the arm that carries a latch tool to change the anode block is part of the rotatable section.
Regarding Claim 16, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the vision system comprises at least one optical sensor.
However, Rudy teaches the vision system comprises at least one optical sensor (see at least Rudy, Col 7 lines 14-20: “In one embodiment, an image capture device 140 may be a camera, 15 such as a digital camera, video camera, a stereo camera, a LiDAR sensor, a visible light camera, an ultraviolet (UV) camera, an infrared (IR) camera, and other suitable devices capable of capturing an image or sequence of images for object recognition.”). Rudy explicitly teaches its vision system comprises an image capture device including different types of cameras which are types of optical sensors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s optical camera and LIDAR sensors as the vision system’s sensing elements based on the motivation to allow the vision system to have a means of visually sensing the environment with a camera or LIDAR sensor. This modification would predictably result in a vision system with optical sensors capable of detecting crane components and obstacles in the industrial crane environment.
Regarding Claim 17, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the vision system is configured to generate 3D position information of a piece of equipment in relation to a work environment.
However, Rudy teaches an optical detection system whose purpose is to solve three-dimensional problems such as determining distances between a crane component and an object (see at least Rudy, Col 12 lines 31-32: “A distance between a crane component and the remotely positioned object 46 may also be determined.”) and analyzing the trajectory of a swinging condition (see at least Rudy, Col 15 lines 22-24: “the optical detection computer is also configured to detect, for example, a swinging lifting appliance 38 and/or load affixed to the lifting appliance 38.”). Rudy explicitly discloses using an image capture device which may be a LiDAR sensor or stereo camera (see at least Rudy, Col 7, lines 15-17: “…an image capture device 140 may be a camera, 15 such as a digital camera, video camera, a stereo camera, a LiDAR sensor…”). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the purpose of using such devices (stereo cameras and LIDAR sensors) in this context is to obtain three-dimensional position data necessary for analyzing and resolve spatial problems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s 3D stereo cameras and LIDAR sensors to generate 3D position information in the positioning system to accurately navigate the work environment with possible obstacles and swinging loads on the anode replacement system. This provides the benefit of giving the system and operator spatial awareness for improved safety and precision.
Regarding Claim 18, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches the support is a component of a crane or vehicle (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 22-26: “On the underside of the bridge structure 14 and adjacent the opposite ends thereof are provided support structures 24 and 26 which support the trolley portions 28 of crucible hoisting cranes indicated generally by the reference character 30.”).
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach the system is an automated system or a semi-automated system.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the system is an automated system or a semi-automated system (see at least Rudy, Col 6 lines 17-19: “…the optical detection system 120 may also communicate with the crane control system 20 to control the various crane operations in a desired manner…”). Rudy explicitly teaches a system where a computer automatically controls crane operations based on sensor input which is equivalent to an automated or semi-automated system. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s automated vision control system to create an automated or semi-automated positioning system based on the motivation to reduce operator exposure to the environmental hazards and improve the positioning repeatability. This modification would predictably result in an automated or semi-automated system where the vision system detects objects and communicates control instructions to the crane without requiring manual operator intervention for detection.
Regarding Claim 20, Siegmund and Moon remain as applied above in Claim 1. Siegmund further teaches a lifting apparatus, crane or vehicle (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 24-26: “…the trolley portions 28 of crucible hoisting cranes indicated generally by the reference character 30.”).
Regarding Claim 21, Siegmund teaches a method of positioning an anode replacement system (see at least Siegmund, Col 4 lines 10-14: “FIG. 3 also illustrates the latching tool 70 in the process of grasping a support rod 150 of an anode block…”), the method comprising:
providing a positioning system, the positioning system comprising: (see at least Siegmund, Abstract: “Mechanism for changing anode blocks…The mechanism includes a rotatable operator's cab carrying remotely controlled tools and alumina charging reservoirs.”):
a movable support configured to be mounted on a crane or vehicle, the support having a longitudinal axis (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 31-35: “Supported for longitudinal movement along one side of the bridge structure 14 is the trolley structure 32 and supported along the opposite side of the bridge structure 14 for longitudinal movement therealong is a further trolley structure indicated generally by the reference character 34 and which carries a utility crane…”; Bridge structure moves longitudinally includes hoisting cranes);
a first positioning member movably mounted to the support, wherein the first positioning member comprises a first axis and a second axis (see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 42-46: “Similarly, the other section 104 carries rails 118 and 120 which cooperate with the wheels 122, 124 and 126 of the trolley 34 so that the utility crane may be traversed along the length of the bridge section 14 on the opposite side thereof from the trolley 32.”; The trolley moving on a first axis and the utility crane moving transversely on a second axis);
moving the first positioning member along the longitudinal axis of the support with the first axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support…(see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 39-41: “…may be rotatably driven to traverse the trolley 32 back and forth along the length of the bridge section 14.”; The trolley being the first positioning member moves parallel to the bridge section).
Siegmund teaches does not explicitly teach a second positioning member connected to an…system, the second positioning member movably mounted to the first positioning member; and moving the second positioning member transversely to the first axes of the first positioning member.
However, Moon teaches a trolley movably mounted on a conveyor (first positioning member), moving transversely ([0032]-[0033]). This teachings is equivalent to the claimed limitations of “a second positioning member connected to an…system, the second positioning member movably mounted to the first positioning member” and “moving the second positioning member transversely to the first axes of the first positioning member” because the trolley is a second positioning member movably mounted on the first positioning member. In combination, Siegmund’s anode replacement tools are connected to Moon’s trolley. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Siegmund’s positioning system to incorporate Moon’s second positioning member (trolley) mounted on the first positioning member and to connect the anode replacement tools to the second positioning member based on the motivation to achieve a controlled precise positioning system of the anode replacement tools, as explicitly taught by Moon “the control unit 140 controls at least one of the unloading operation unit 110 and the traveling unit 107 under the same condition so that at least one of the moving speeds of the unloading operation unit 110 and the crane 100 is decelerated stepwise.” [0047]. Moon’s stepwise deceleration demonstrates that the second positioning member is designed for controlled, precise final approach required for anode placement. This modification would predictably result in an improved positioning accuracy by providing independent two axis adjustment where the first member handles coarse longitudinal travel along the furnace row while the second member provides fine transverse alignment, eliminating the need to reposition the entire bridge for lateral corrections. See MPEP § 2143 – Combining known elements (Sigmund’s anode replacement crane with Moon’s trolley) by known methods (mounting a second trolley on the first for transverse movement) yields predictable results (two axis fine positioning of anode replacement tools).
Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach a vision system; obtaining positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement system using the vision system; moving the first positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system; and moving the second positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system.
However, Rudy discloses an optical detection system for a lift crane that detects crane components, loads, and surrounding objects. Rudy teaches an optical detection system which captures images and detects various objects including crane components, loads, markers, and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in the crane’s vicinity (Col 5 lines 51-55). The system analyzes detected objects to determine their positions (Col 8 lines 56-59). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of a vision system obtaining positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement system using the vision system because the optical detection system detects and determines positions of crane components (which, in the combination, includes the anode replacement system) and objects in the crane’s vicinity (the surrounding environment), thereby obtaining positional data of both the equipment and its surroundings. Rudy further teaches that the optical detection system communicates with crane control system to control crane operations based on the optical detection data (Col 6 lines 17-19). This teaching, combined with Siegmund’s trolley movement and Moon’s transverse trolley movement, is equivalent to the claimed limitations of moving the first positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system; and moving the second positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system because Rudy’s crane control system controls the movement of both the first and second positioning members based on positional data received from the optical detection system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of the optical detection system and crane control system as taught by Rudy, based on the motivation to automate the alignment of anode replacement tools and to improve safety. Rudy explicitly teaches “…the optical detection system 120 is configured to detect, in a captured image, various objects such as crane components, loads, markers and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in a vicinity of the crane 10.” (Col 5 lines 51-55). A POSITA would be motivated to add vision-based positioning control to reduce reliance on manual operator visibility in a harsh operating environment and improve the precision by using machine vision rather than human observation for final positioning, the exact problem identified in the applicant’s specification (Page 1-2). This modification would predictably result in a vision guided crane positioning system with higher accuracy and repeatability result operations.
Regarding Claim 22, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 21. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach detecting at least one positional marker on the crane or vehicle to accurately locate and/or move the position of positioning system.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting at least one positional marker on the crane (see at least Rudy, Col 7-8 lines 60-7: “…the object detected by the optical 60 detection computer 122 may be the marker 142 or target (see, for example, FIG. 8) …The marker 142 may be disposed on an object, such as a crane component, load or remotely positioned object.”). Rudy explicitly teaches placing markers on a crane component to assist the optical detection of a positional marker on the crane. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s marker detection to assist in crane operations based on the motivation to provide position references accurately in locating and moving the positioning members providing the benefit of an improved feedback system for precise real-time tracking and control of the system.
Regarding Claim 23, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 21. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach detecting at least one positional marker on the support to accurately locate and/or move the position of first positioning member.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting at least one positional marker on the support to accurately locate and/or move the position of first positioning member (see at least Rudy, Col 7 lines 62-65: “Detection of a readily visible marker 142 in the captured image may assist in detection of a crane component or other object on which the marker 142 is disposed.”; see at least Rudy, Col 6 lines 17-19: “…the optical detection system 120 may also communicate with the crane control system 20 to control the various crane operations in a desired manner…”). Rudy explicitly teaches using the optical detection system to detect a marker on a component of a crane and controlling various crane operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place positional markers along the support to serve as a fixed reference on the crane. By placing a static marker on the stationary support structure, the moving trolley can use its own sensors to read these markers as it passes them. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s marker detection to assist in crane operations based on the motivation to provide position references accurately in locating and moving the positioning members providing the benefit of an improved feedback system for precise real-time tracking and control of the system.
Regarding Claim 24, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 21. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach detecting at least one positional marker on the first positioning member to accurately locate and/or move the position of second positioning member.
However, Rudy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting at least one positional marker on the first positioning member to accurately locate (see at least Rudy, Col 7 lines 62-65: “Detection of a readily visible marker 142 in the captured image may assist in detection of a crane component or other object on which the marker 142 is disposed.”). A POSITA would have been motivated to place positional markers along the first positioning member to establish a local or relative frame of reference, enabling the second positioning member to determine its transverse position relative to the first positioning member. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy to use the vision system to detect the positional markers on the positioning members of the crane in order to accurately determine the location of the positioning members. This provides the benefit of an improved feedback system for precise real-time tracking and control of the system.
Regarding Claim 25, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remain as applied above in Claim 21. Siegmund further teaches moving the positioning system in a direction parallel with the second axis to a first position accuracy (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 16-21: “…an overhead traveling assembly indicated generally by the reference character 12 which comprises a bridge structure 14 provided with trolley assemblies 16 and 18 at its opposite ends which are supported on the rails 20 and 22 provided to allow the assembly 12 to travel lengthwise…”; The Examiner interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, as moving the entire crane bridge positioning system for repositioning). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the main crane bridge is intended for the purpose of positioning the apparatus to the desired location which is equivalent to a first position accuracy.
Siegmund does not explicitly teach moving the second positioning member in a direction parallel with the second axis to locate a load or piece of equipment to a second position accuracy wherein the second position accuracy is higher than the first position accuracy.
However, Moon teaches moving the second positioning member in a direction parallel with the second axis (see at least Moon, Para [0033]: “At this time, the trolley 112 moves along the second rail 103a provided on the upper portion of the conveying portion 114 installed in the width direction on the first rail 103.”; the second positioning member (the trolley) moves along with the second axis (second rail)). The movement in the width direction defines the second axis. Furthermore, Moon teaches controlling the unloading operation unit (includes the second trolley) by stepping down the operation speed. Under certain conditions (like proximity of a worker), the system ensure safe operation speeds (see at least Moon, Para [0047]: “At this time, the control unit 140 controls at least one of the unloading operation unit 110 and the traveling unit 107 under the same condition so that at least one of the moving speeds of the unloading operation unit 110 and the crane 100 is decelerated stepwise.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the purpose of a decelerating a positioning member for its final approach is the standard and necessary technique to achieve high-accuracy placement. It is a fundamental principle that slow controlled movements result in a less overshoot and allow for a more precise stopping position. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of Moon’s decelerated stepwise in the second positioning member of the positioning system for slow controlled movements to obtain high accuracy positioning. This provides the benefit of a system that can operate in large areas and achieve high precise final positioning of the anode replacement tools.
Regarding Claim 26, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 21. Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach obtaining accurate positional data of a suspended load and/or a suspended piece of equipment using the sensor system.
However, Rudy teaches obtaining accurate positional data of suspended load using the sensor system (see at least Rudy, Col 2 lines 36-40: “…the optical detection computer is configured to detect one or more objects in the captured image, the one or more objects selected from: the lifting appliance, the cable, a load coupled to lifting appliance, an object remote from the crane and a marker.”; see at least Rudy, Col 5 lines 51-55: “…the optical detection system 120 is configured to detect, in a captured image, various objects such as crane components, loads, markers and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in a vicinity of the crane 10.”). Rudy explicitly teaches obtaining accurate position data of loads using the optical detection system. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Rudy’s optical detection system to obtain the positional data of the suspended anode replacement tools based on the motivation to track the exact position of suspended equipment providing the benefit of enhanced accuracy and safety of the anode replacement system.
Regarding Claim 27, Siegmund teaches a method of replacing an anode in an aluminium production process, the method comprising (see at least Siegmund, Abstract: “Mechanism for changing anode blocks...”):
providing an anode replacement system, the anode replacement system comprising: at least one anode gripping apparatus (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 62-68: “The arm 62 carries a latch tool 70 and also a wrench 72, both preferably movable according to arrow A, the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block and the tool 72 is adapted to release and tighten the anode block clamping assembly.”); and
a positioning system for the anode replacement system; the positioning system comprising; a movable support; the support having a longitudinal axis; (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 16-22: “an overhead traveling assembly indicated generally by the reference character 12 which comprises a bridge structure 14 provided with trolley assemblies 16 and 18 at its opposite ends which are supported on the rails 20 and 22 provided to allow the assembly 12 to travel lengthwise of the row of furnaces 10.”; see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 31-35: “Supported for longitudinal movement along one side of the bridge structure 14 is the trolley structure 32 and supported along the opposite side of the bridge structure
14 for longitudinal movement…”; The positioning system (the overhead assembly) with a movable support (the bridge structure) for the anode tools);
a first positioning member movably mounted to the support, wherein the first positioning member comprises a first axis and a second axis (see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 42-46: “Similarly, the other section 104 carries rails 118 and 120 which cooperate with the wheels 122, 124 and 126 of the trolley 34 so that the utility crane may be traversed along the length of the bridge section 14 on the opposite side thereof from the trolley 32.”; The trolley moving on a first axis and the utility crane moving transversely on a second axis);
moving the first positioning member along the longitudinal axis of the support with the first axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the support… (see at least Siegmund, Col 3 lines 39-41: “…may be rotatably driven to traverse the trolley 32 back and forth along the length of the bridge section 14.”; see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 62-68: “The arm 62 carries a latch tool 70 and also a wrench 72, both preferably movable according to arrow A, the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block and the tool 72 is adapted to release and tighten the anode block clamping assembly.”; The trolley being the first positioning member moves parallel to the bridge section and the arm carrying the latch tool to change an anode block); and
actuating the anode replacement system to replace at least one anode of an electrolytic cell (see at least Siegmund, Col 2 lines 64-66: the latch 70 being adapted to grip the upper end of an anode block supporting rod so as to adjust or to change an anode block…”; Actuating the latch tool to change an anode block in furnace (electrolytic cell)).
Siegmund teaches does not explicitly teach a second positioning member connected to…system, the second positioning member movably mounted to the first positioning member.
However, Moon teaches a trolley movably mounted on a conveyor (first positioning member), moving transversely ([0032]-[0033]). This teachings is equivalent to the claimed limitations of “a second positioning member connected to an…system, the second positioning member movably mounted to the first positioning member” and “moving the second positioning member transversely to the first axes of the first positioning member” because the trolley is a second positioning member movably mounted on the first positioning member. In combination, Siegmund’s anode replacement tools are connected to Moon’s trolley. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Siegmund’s positioning system to incorporate Moon’s second positioning member (trolley) mounted on the first positioning member and to connect the anode replacement tools to the second positioning member based on the motivation to achieve a controlled precise positioning system of the anode replacement tools, as explicitly taught by Moon “the control unit 140 controls at least one of the unloading operation unit 110 and the traveling unit 107 under the same condition so that at least one of the moving speeds of the unloading operation unit 110 and the crane 100 is decelerated stepwise.” [0047]. Moon’s stepwise deceleration demonstrates that the second positioning member is designed for controlled, precise final approach required for anode placement. This modification would predictably result in an improved positioning accuracy by providing independent two axis adjustment where the first member handles coarse longitudinal travel along the furnace row while the second member provides fine transverse alignment, eliminating the need to reposition the entire bridge for lateral corrections. See MPEP § 2143 – Combining known elements (Sigmund’s anode replacement crane with Moon’s trolley) by known methods (mounting a second trolley on the first for transverse movement) yields predictable results (two axis fine positioning of anode replacement tools).
Siegmund and Moon does not explicitly teach a vision system; obtaining positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement using the vision system; moving the first positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system
However, Rudy discloses an optical detection system for a lift crane that detects crane components, loads, and surrounding objects. Rudy teaches an optical detection system which captures images and detects various objects including crane components, loads, markers, and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in the crane’s vicinity (Col 5 lines 51-55). The system analyzes detected objects to determine their positions (Col 8 lines 56-59). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of a vision system obtaining positional data of the anode replacement system and a surrounding environment of the anode replacement system using the vision system because the optical detection system detects and determines positions of crane components (which, in the combination, includes the anode replacement system) and objects in the crane’s vicinity (the surrounding environment), thereby obtaining positional data of both the equipment and its surroundings. Rudy further teaches that the optical detection system communicates with crane control system to control crane operations based on the optical detection data (Col 6 lines 17-19). This teaching, combined with Siegmund’s trolley movement and Moon’s transverse trolley movement, is equivalent to the claimed limitations of moving the first positioning member…based on the positional data from the vision system; because Rudy’s crane control system controls the movement of both the first positioning member based on positional data received from the optical detection system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of the optical detection system and crane control system as taught by Rudy, based on the motivation to automate the alignment of anode replacement tools and to improve safety. Rudy explicitly teaches “…the optical detection system 120 is configured to detect, in a captured image, various objects such as crane components, loads, markers and remotely positioned obstacles or objects in a vicinity of the crane 10.” (Col 5 lines 51-55). A POSITA would be motivated to add vision-based positioning control to reduce reliance on manual operator visibility in a harsh operating environment and improve the precision by using machine vision rather than human observation for final positioning, the exact problem identified in the applicant’s specification (Page 1-2). This modification would predictably result in a vision guided crane positioning system with higher accuracy and repeatability result operations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegmund in view of Moon, and in view of Rudy, as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Dong et al. (CN 101769827 A), and herein after will be referred to as Dong.
Regarding Claim 6, Siegmund, Moon, and Rudy remains as applied above in Claim 5. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more motors is a servomotor.
However, Dong teaches one or more motors is a servomotor (see at least Dong, Page 2 Section 4: “Gantry crane test bed by PC control two cover servo-drive systems and a cover driving system of stepping motor, drive big mechanism of car, trolley body and lifting mechanism operation respectively. Every suit servo-drive system is made up of motion controller, servo-driver, servomotor…”). Dong explicitly discloses using a servomotor within a servo-drive system for the gantry crane.
Siegmund, Moon, Rudy, and Dong are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of the mechanisms of crane control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of Dong’s selection of servomotors for the driving mechanism of the positioning members. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use servomotors for their kinematic accuracy and quick response time when operating machinery. This provides the benefit of the high-precision motion control for industrial task like anode replacements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegmund in view of Moon, and in view of Rudy, as applied above in claim 13, and in further view of Albus et al. (US 4883184), and herein after will be referred to as Albus.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art combination remains as applied above in Claim 13. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the first positioning member, second positioning member and/or rotatable platform comprises a spring suspension system.
However, Albus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lifting platform that is suspended from a crane (see at least Albus, Col 3 lines 3-5: “The lifting platform secures loads to a securing means, and the platform is able to be suspended from a crane…”) and includes a spring suspension system (see at least Albus, Col 4 lines 29-33: “…hydraulic spring-shock absorbers 16 are attached at each of the cable attachment points. Additionally, a pair of swivel turnbuckles 17 are preferably attached between the respective cables and the spring-shock absorbers at each of the attachment points.”) to improve stability. The stated purpose of the spring-shock absorbers is to reduce oscillation and overshoot when lifting heavy loads with the crane (see at least Albus Col 4, lines 24-28: “In applications where a heavy load is attached to the load platform, the system may have a tendency to overshoot or oscillate under dynamic excitation. The tendency of the system to oscillate and/or overshoot can be reduced”). A person ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the spring suspension system to improve the stability of the positioning system when heavy loads are lifted.
Siegmund, Moon, Rudy, and Albus are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of the positioning and handling of crane systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Siegmund and Moon to incorporate the teachings of Albus to include a spring suspension system to reduce the oscillation and overshoot when lifting heavy loads for the anode replacement. This provides the benefit of enhancing the safety operations of the positioning system by reducing the amount of unwanted vibrations and swaying of a load.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (KR 101058406 B1)
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 and 8, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 and 25 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, removing the term “substantially,” render the rejections moot. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8 through 12, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 21, and 27 and Claims Dependent thereon under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that Moon does not independently teach connecting the anode replacement system to the second positioning member mischaracterizes the basis of the rejection. The rejection is not premised on Moon along teaching this limitation. Rather, in combination, a person of ordinary skill in the art would connect Siegmund’s anode replacement tool (latch tool and wrench) to Moon’s trolley (the second positioning member). This is an application of KSR Rationale – Combining known elements by known methods to yield predictable results. Siegmund teaches the anode replacement system tools and Moon teaches a second positioning member (trolley) mounted on the first positioning member (conveyor) that moves transversely. Connecting the tools to the transversely moving member is the predictable result of combining the two references.
The motivation to combine the reference has been strengthened and is articulated in the rejection. Moon explicitly teaches a stepwise speed deceleration for controlled approach, “the control unit 140 controls at least one of the unloading operation unit 110 and the traveling unit 107 under the same condition so that at least one of the moving speeds of the unloading operation unit 110 and the crane 100 is decelerated stepwise.” ([0047]). A POSITA would recognize that connecting the anode replacement system to a second positioning member that provides independent transverse movement for achieving two axis positioning where the first member handles coarse longitudinal travel along the furnace row and the second member provides transverse adjustment for alignment with individual electrolytic cells. This eliminates the need to reposition the entire bridge for lateral corrections, which is an obvious engineering benefit when the goal is precise anode placement at individual cell positions arranged in rows.
The Applicant argues that the combination is “inconsistent with the only embodiments disclosed in Siegmund” conflates a reference’s disclosed embodiments with the scope of what a POSITA would find obvious. The test for obviousness under § 103 is not whether the prior art contains a single reference that discloses every claim limitation but it is whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA in view of the combined teachings of the references. See MPEP § 2143 – Combining known elements by known methods yields predictable results. Siegmund’s single axis crane is not a ceiling on what a POSITA would find obvious but it is the starting point for the modification.
The Applicant argues Moon as non-analogous art is not persuasive. Moon is classified in CPC class B66C (cranes), the same classification and field of endeavor as the present application. Both Siegmund and Moon address the problem of controlled precise positioning of equipment on overhead crane structures. The fact that Moon also addresses worker safety detection does not negate its relevance to crane positioning. A reference may be analogous based on its field of endeavor or the problem it addresses, and Moon qualifies on both counts. See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Applicant argues that modifying Siegmund to control anode replacement positioning based on positional data from a vision system would “change the fundamental operating system” of Siegmund, citing In re Ratti, 270 F. 2d 810, 123 U.S.P.Q 349 (C.C.P.A. 1959). This Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The In re Ratti standard requires a change to the “principle of operation”, not merely a change to one component or control method. Adding vision-based positioning control to Siegmund’s crane does not alter its principle of operation. The crane still performs the same function by the same fundamental mechanism, an overhead traveling assembly traverses a row of electrolytic furnaces on rails, positions anode handling tools at successive furnace locations, and replaces anode blocks using mechanical gripping tools. The bridge still travels on rails, the trolley still traverses the bridge on rails, and the latch tool still grips anode block support rods. None of these mechanical elements or their functional relationships are altered.
Siegmund discloses an operator’s cab “from which the various tools and equipment are controlled remotely by the operator as the movable equipment travels from place to place down the line of furnaces” Siegmund, Background. Augmenting operator observation with camera-based detection and automated control is an improvement to the method of control, not a change in the mechanism of operation. Rudy teaches an optical detection system for a lift crane that communicates with the crane control system to “control the various crane operations in a desired manner” (Col 6 lines 17-19). Rudy’s system is specifically designed for integration with existing crane control infrastructure and is not foreign technology being forced into an incompatible system. A POSITA would recognize Rudy’s optical detection system as an enhancement to any crane control system, including Siegmund’s. A POSITA would be motivated to add vision-based positioning control to reduce reliance on manual operator visibility in harsh operating environments characterized by heat, fumes, and limited visibility, conditions well-known in aluminum smelting art. Machine vision provides higher accuracy and repeatability than human observation for final positioning of anode replacement tools. The Applicant’s own specification acknowledges these same environmental challenges (Pages 1-2), confirming that the problem is recognized in the art. Accordingly, the In re Ratti argument is inapplicable because the proposed combination does not change Siegmund’s principle of operation but it enhances the control method while preserving the same mechanical structure, the same function sequence, and the same end result. Therefore, the rejections of independent claims 1, 21, and 27, and all claims dependent thereon, are maintained on new grounds necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
