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 05/02/2023 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 1-18 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: CLAIM 1 INCLUDES AN APPARENT TYPOGRAPHICAL/TRANSLATION ERROR THAT RENDERS THE LIMITATION UNCLEAR
Claim 1 recites “wherein said maystationary unit comprises an energy transmitting coil,”. The term “maystationary” does not have a reasonably clear meaning in the context of the claim and does not antecedently correspond to a previously introduced element. As a result, the scope of claim 1 is unclear as to which component comprises the energy transmitting coil and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
ISSUE 2: CLAIM 4 LACKS REASONABLY CLEAR SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION (“THE MOVABLE ARE MOVABLE”)
Claim 4 recites “wherein the movable are movable along the guide rail by the drive,”. The phrase “the movable” is unclear because it does not identify what structure is “movable.” In context, it appears intended to refer to the “movable unit” or “movable units,” but the present wording fails to particularly point out the subject of movement, thereby rendering the limitation indefinite.
ISSUE 3: CLAIM 1 IS INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT AS TO WHAT IS “MECHANICALLY FIXED” IN THE FIRST POSITION
Claim 1 recites “wherein the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable element in the first position.” However, claim 1 elsewhere states the fixing device is arranged to fix the movable unit in the linear transport system, and dependent claims (for example, claims 4–8) describe impeded movement of the movable unit along a guide rail. The recitation that the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable element (rather than the movable unit) introduces ambiguity as to whether the “mechanical fixing” is intended to be of the movable unit, the movable element, or both, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
ISSUE 4: CLAIM 10 INCLUDES AN APPARENT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR (“FIX FIXING”) THAT OBSCURES THE CLAIM SCOPE
Claim 10 recites “wherein the movable unit comprises a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is configured to fix fixing the movable unit in the linear transport system”. The duplication “fix fixing” creates ambiguity in reading the limitation and detracts from clarity as to the intended function and scope.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 US 2021/0046826 A1 Prüssmeier et al. Published Feb. 18, 2021 “LINEAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM, METHOD FOR OPERATING A LINEAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM, AND CONTACTLESSLY TRANSMITTING POWER AND DATA SYSTEM” (Beckhoff Automation GmbH)
REFERENCE 2 JPH09224366 Japanese Patent Publication “Linear motor in which a moving element does not move even when a power source is turned off” (English translation relied upon)
REFERENCE 3 CN106429712A Chinese Patent Publication Published Feb. 22, 2017 “Elevator safety device” (English translation relied upon for relevant portions and reference numerals)
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 1–4 AND 7–9: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A linear transport system, wherein the linear transport system comprises: at least a stationary unit and at least a movable unit, wherein the linear transport system further comprises a drive for driving said movable unit, wherein the drive comprises a linear motor, and wherein the linear motor comprises a stator and a rotor, wherein the stator comprises one or a plurality of said stationary unit, and wherein the rotor is arranged on said movable unit and comprises one or a plurality of magnets; wherein said maystationary unit comprises an energy transmitting coil, wherein said movable unit comprises an energy receiving coil, wherein said movable unit comprises a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is arranged to fix said movable unit in the linear transport system, wherein the fixing device comprises a movable element, wherein the movable element is movable between a first position and a second position, and wherein the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable element in the first position.
CLAIM 1 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “A linear transport system,” Reference 1 discloses a linear transport system 101 (Reference 1, Fig. 1) configured for guided linear (and closed-path) transport of a movable carriage.
With regard to “wherein the linear transport system comprises: at least a stationary unit and at least a movable unit,” Reference 1 discloses stationary structure including a guide rail 105 and stationary motor module(s) 111 and stationary coil module(s) 121 arranged along the guide rail (Reference 1, Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 3), and further discloses a movable carriage 103 (Reference 1, Fig. 1; Fig. 2). The stationary guide rail 105 and stationary modules 111/121 together correspond to at least one stationary unit of the system, while the carriage 103 corresponds to at least one movable unit.
With regard to “wherein the linear transport system further comprises a drive for driving said movable unit,” Reference 1 discloses that the movable carriage 103 is driven along the guide rail 105 by a linear motor 107 (Reference 1, Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 3).
With regard to “wherein the drive comprises a linear motor, and wherein the linear motor comprises a stator and a rotor,” Reference 1 expressly discloses linear motor 107 comprising stator 109 and rotor arranged at the carriage (Reference 1, Fig. 1; and the description identifying stator 109 and rotor at carriage 103).
With regard to “wherein the stator comprises one or a plurality of said stationary unit,” Reference 1 discloses the stator 109 comprising one or more motor modules 111 arranged along the guide rail 105 in a stationary manner, each motor module including drive coils (Reference 1, Fig. 1; Fig. 3 showing drive coil 113 abstractly; and description stating motor modules 111 are part of stator 109). Thus, the stationary motor module(s) 111 constitute stationary unit(s) forming the stator structure.
With regard to “wherein the rotor is arranged on said movable unit and comprises one or a plurality of magnets,” Reference 1 discloses the rotor arranged at the carriage 103 and comprising magnets (Reference 1, Fig. 3 showing magnets 117 abstractly; and description stating the rotor is arranged at the carriage and comprises magnets). Thus, Reference 1 teaches a moving-magnet type linear motor with the magnets on the movable unit.
With regard to “wherein said maystationary unit comprises an energy transmitting coil,” Reference 1 discloses stationary coil modules 121 arranged along the motor modules 111, each including a power-transmitting coil 125 (Reference 1, Fig. 2; Fig. 4; and description stating stationary coil modules 121 comprise a power-transmitting coil 125). In the context of Reference 1, the stationary coil module(s) 121 are part of the stationary infrastructure arranged along the guide rail and motor modules and therefore correspond to the claimed stationary unit comprising an energy transmitting coil.
With regard to “wherein said movable unit comprises an energy receiving coil,” Reference 1 discloses a carriage-coil module 123 arranged on the carriage 103, which includes a power-receiving coil 137 (Reference 1, Fig. 2; and description identifying power-receiving coil 137 on carriage-coil module 123). This power-receiving coil 137 corresponds to the claimed energy receiving coil.
With regard to “wherein said movable unit comprises a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is arranged to fix said movable unit in the linear transport system,” Reference 1 is directed primarily to propulsion and contactless power/data transfer and does not emphasize a mechanical fixing/braking device for immobilizing the carriage. Reference 2, however, is directed to preventing movement of a moving element when the power source is turned off by providing an electromagnetic brake device. Reference 2 discloses an electromagnetic brake device 10 fixed to the mover 4 of the linear motor (Reference 2, detailed embodiment; brake device 10 mounted to mover 4). Reference 2 further discloses that when the brake is applied, the moving element does not move even when the power source is turned off, thereby fixing or mechanically restraining the moving element relative to the stationary portion (Reference 2, stated object and operation of brake device 10). It would have been obvious to incorporate the fixing device functionality of Reference 2 (electromagnetic brake device 10) onto the carriage 103 of Reference 1 to fix the movable unit within the linear transport system, particularly to prevent unintended carriage movement during power interruption and/or to permit stable positioning for operations.
With regard to “wherein the fixing device comprises a movable element,” Reference 2 discloses brake device 10 including a movable-side yoke 14 (movable yoke) that moves relative to the fixed-side yoke 11 under electromagnetic attraction and spring bias (Reference 2, yokes 11 and 14; pin 15 and groove 16 guiding movement). The movable-side yoke 14 and the attached brake pad 18 collectively function as a movable brake-actuating element within the brake device.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is movable between a first position and a second position,” Reference 2 discloses that when coil 13 is excited, the movable-side yoke 14 is attracted toward the fixed-side yoke 11 against the force of coil spring 17 such that the brake pad 18 separates from the stator surface, thereby releasing the brake (Reference 2, coil 13; coil spring 17; brake pad 18). Conversely, when coil 13 is demagnetized, coil spring 17 drives the movable-side yoke 14 away from the fixed-side yoke 11 such that the brake pad 18 presses the stationary portion (e.g., stator surface), thereby applying the brake (Reference 2, coil spring 17; brake pad 18). These two operational states correspond to two distinct positions (a brake-applied position and a brake-released position), meeting the claimed first and second positions.
With regard to “wherein the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable element in the first position,” Reference 2 discloses that, in the brake-applied state (the spring-driven state when coil 13 is demagnetized), the brake pad 18 is pressed into frictional contact with the stationary portion (e.g., the stator 1 surface as illustrated) to apply braking force and prevent movement of the mover 4 (Reference 2, brake pad 18 pressing stator 1 under coil spring 17 force). This constitutes a mechanical fixing/immobilization effect of the moving portion of the system. In the combined system, the “first position” reasonably corresponds to the brake-applied position in which the movable element causes mechanical fixation of the movable unit (carriage 103) relative to the stationary structure (guide rail 105 and/or associated stationary structures). Thus, the movable element (yoke 14/brake pad 18 assembly) triggers mechanical fixation when in the first position by applying mechanical braking engagement.
CLAIM 1 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the electromagnetic brake device 10 of Reference 2 into the linear transport system 101 of Reference 1 to achieve predictable safety and positioning benefits, namely preventing unintended movement of the carriage 103 when power is interrupted and enabling stable holding of the carriage at a location when desired. Reference 2 expressly addresses the problem of uncontrolled mover movement upon power-off and provides a compact electromagnetic brake solution (10, 13, 17, 18) that mechanically restrains motion. Applying that same solution to Reference 1’s carriage-based linear transport system would have been an expected design choice because Reference 1 already contemplates controlled movement and contactless power/data delivery to a moving carriage, and a brake/fixing device is a known complementary subsystem for controlled transport platforms. The combination yields no more than the predictable result of a linear transport carriage that can be mechanically fixed against motion when desired or when power fails.
The linear transport system according to claim 1, wherein the energy receiving coil is equipped to receive an energy from the energy transmitting coil.
CLAIM 2 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 1,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the linear transport system with stationary structure (guide rail 105; motor modules 111; stationary coil module(s) 121) and a movable carriage 103 driven by linear motor 107 with stator 109 and carriage-mounted rotor magnets 117, with contactless power transfer by power-transmitting coil 125 and power-receiving coil 137, and further modified to include a carriage-mounted fixing device corresponding to brake device 10 using coil 13, coil spring 17, and brake pad 18 as discussed above for claim 1.
With regard to “wherein the energy receiving coil is equipped to receive an energy from the energy transmitting coil,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that the stationary coil modules 121 include a power-transmitting coil 125 and that the carriage-coil module 123 includes a power-receiving coil 137 arranged opposite the power-transmitting coil such that power is contactlessly transmitted to the carriage via inductive coupling between the power-transmitting coil and the power-receiving coil (Reference 1, Fig. 2 and associated description; power-transmitting coil 125; power-receiving coil 137; inductive coupling). The power-receiving coil 137 is therefore equipped to receive energy from the power-transmitting coil 125, satisfying the limitation.
CLAIM 2 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
The combination rationale for claim 2 follows directly from claim 1 because the added limitation of claim 2 is explicitly taught by Reference 1’s contactless power transmission architecture (125, 137). Incorporating Reference 2’s brake device into Reference 1 does not alter, and would not discourage, using Reference 1’s inductive energy transfer to supply or support carriage-side functions. The result remains predictable: the carriage receives energy contactlessly from stationary coils while also having a mechanical fixing capability.
The linear transport system according to claim 1, wherein the movable element is configured to be held in the second position with the aid of an electromagnet, wherein the electromagnet is configured to be supplied with a current with the aid of the energy transmitting coil and energy receiving coil, respectively, wherein a reset element acts against a force generated by the electromagnet, and wherein movement of the movable element into the first position is adapted to be effected by the reset element.
CLAIM 3 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 1,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the overall system as explained above for claim 1, including the moving-magnet linear motor (107, 109, 111, 113, 117), the guide rail and carriage (105, 103, 104, 106), the stationary power-transmitting coil and carriage power-receiving coil (121, 125, 123, 137), and the added carriage fixing device based on Reference 2’s brake device (10, 13, 17, 18, 11, 14).
With regard to “wherein the movable element is configured to be held in the second position with the aid of an electromagnet,” Reference 2 discloses that excitation of coil 13 (an electromagnet coil associated with yokes 11 and 14) attracts the movable-side yoke 14 toward the fixed-side yoke 11 against spring force, thereby moving the brake pad 18 away from the stationary surface and holding the brake in a released state (Reference 2, coil 13; fixed-side yoke 11; movable-side yoke 14; brake pad 18; coil spring 17). This released state corresponds to the movable element being held in a particular position (the claimed second position) with the aid of an electromagnet (coil 13 with yokes 11/14).
With regard to “wherein the electromagnet is configured to be supplied with a current with the aid of the energy transmitting coil and energy receiving coil, respectively,” Reference 1 teaches that electrical energy is transferred contactlessly from stationary power-transmitting coil 125 (in stationary coil module 121) to carriage power-receiving coil 137 (in carriage-coil module 123) to supply carriage-side electrical loads (Reference 1, coils 125 and 137 and discussion of supplying carriage electrical devices such as electrical device 157). Reference 2 teaches an electromagnet coil 13 that is supplied with current to control braking (Reference 2, coil 13). It would have been obvious to supply current to the carriage-mounted electromagnet (coil 13) using the carriage-side electrical energy obtained through Reference 1’s inductive power link (125 to 137), because doing so is a straightforward and predictable integration: Reference 1 already provides contactless electrical power expressly to enable carriage-mounted electrical devices, and Reference 2’s electromagnet coil 13 is such a carriage-mounted electrical device in the combined system.
With regard to “wherein a reset element acts against a force generated by the electromagnet,” Reference 2 discloses coil spring 17 mounted between the fixed-side yoke 11 and movable-side yoke 14, configured to press the movable-side yoke 14 toward the stationary side (Reference 2, coil spring 17). When coil 13 is excited, the electromagnetic attraction force acts to pull the movable-side yoke 14 toward the fixed-side yoke 11, and the coil spring 17 acts against that electromagnetic force (Reference 2, described operation: attraction against spring force). Thus, the spring 17 acts as a reset element opposing the electromagnet-generated force.
With regard to “wherein movement of the movable element into the first position is adapted to be effected by the reset element,” Reference 2 discloses that when the electromagnet coil 13 is demagnetized, the coil spring 17 drives the movable-side yoke 14 such that brake pad 18 presses the stationary surface to apply braking (Reference 2, demagnetized coil 13; spring 17 moving yoke 14; brake pad 18 applying brake). This spring-driven movement corresponds to movement of the movable element into the claimed first position being effected by the reset element (spring 17).
CLAIM 3 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to power Reference 2’s electromagnet coil 13 using the contactless energy transfer of Reference 1 (power-transmitting coil 125 to power-receiving coil 137) because Reference 1 specifically provides contactless power to support carriage-side electrical devices, and an electromagnet-actuated brake is an expected carriage-side electrical load for safety and controlled stopping. This modification avoids additional moving cables or sliding contacts, improves reliability, and produces the predictable result that the brake release function is available whenever the carriage is over an energized stationary coil region, while still allowing fail-safe braking when power is removed.
The linear transport system according to claim 1, wherein the linear transport system comprises a guide rail, wherein the movable are movable along the guide rail by the drive, wherein the movable unit comprises rollers, wherein the rollers roll on running surfaces of the guide rail, and wherein movement along the guide rail is impeded by the fixing device.
CLAIM 4 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 1,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the complete base system including guide rail 105 and carriage 103 driven by linear motor 107 with stator 109 and carriage magnets 117, contactless power via coils 125/137, and a carriage-mounted fixing device as explained for claim 1.
With regard to “wherein the linear transport system comprises a guide rail,” Reference 1 expressly discloses guide rail 105 (Reference 1, Fig. 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 3).
With regard to “wherein the movable are movable along the guide rail by the drive,” Reference 1 discloses that the carriage 103 is movable along the guide rail 105 by the linear motor 107 (Reference 1, Fig. 1; description that linear motor drives the carriage along the guide rail). The “movable” in context corresponds to the movable unit/carriage 103.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises rollers, wherein the rollers roll on running surfaces of the guide rail,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that the carriage 103 comprises rollers 104 and that the rollers roll on running surfaces 106 of the guide rail (Reference 1, Fig. 3 showing rollers 104 and running surfaces 106; and description stating the rollers roll on running surfaces of the guide rail).
With regard to “wherein movement along the guide rail is impeded by the fixing device,” Reference 2 discloses that the brake device 10, when applied, causes brake pad 18 to press against a stationary surface (e.g., stator 1 surface) to apply braking force and prevent movement of the mover 4 (Reference 2, brake device 10; brake pad 18; coil spring 17 applying brake). Reference 2 further explains that the brake pad may press not only the stator surface but also a side surface or upper surface of the guide rail, and may alternatively press a roller of the moving element (Reference 2, disclosed variations). Therefore, when the brake device 10 of Reference 2 is applied in the combined system, the carriage’s movement along the guide rail 105 is impeded by the fixing device through frictional braking engagement with the rail and/or associated rolling elements, satisfying the limitation.
CLAIM 4 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement Reference 2’s brake so that it impedes movement along the guide rail of Reference 1 because Reference 1’s carriage is guided by rollers on rail running surfaces (104, 106), and Reference 2 provides well-understood mechanical braking interfaces that act directly on stationary surfaces and/or rollers to restrain movement. Applying such braking to a rail-guided carriage is a predictable design choice to improve safety and positioning accuracy of the transport system.
The linear transport system according to claim 4, wherein the movable element comprises a first brake pad, wherein the first brake pad contacts the guide rail when the movable element is arranged in the first position.
CLAIM 7 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 4,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the system of claim 1 further including a guide rail 105, a carriage 103 movable along the rail by linear motor 107, rollers 104 rolling on running surfaces 106, and a fixing device (brake device 10) that impedes movement along the guide rail as explained above.
With regard to “wherein the movable element comprises a first brake pad,” Reference 2 discloses brake pad 18 attached to the movable-side yoke 14 as part of electromagnetic brake device 10 (Reference 2, brake pad 18; movable-side yoke 14). This brake pad 18 corresponds to the claimed first brake pad in the combined system.
With regard to “wherein the first brake pad contacts the guide rail when the movable element is arranged in the first position,” Reference 2 discloses that when coil 13 is demagnetized, coil spring 17 drives the movable-side yoke 14 so that brake pad 18 presses the stationary portion to apply braking (Reference 2, coil spring 17; brake pad 18 pressing stationary portion). Reference 2 further teaches that the brake pad may press a side surface or upper surface of the guide rail (Reference 2, disclosed alternative contact surfaces). Therefore, in the combined system, when the movable element (yoke 14 carrying brake pad 18) is in the first (brake-applied) position, the brake pad contacts the guide rail (corresponding to Reference 1’s guide rail 105), satisfying the limitation.
CLAIM 7 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to configure the brake pad of Reference 2 to contact the guide rail of Reference 1 in the brake-applied position because Reference 2 expressly identifies contacting the guide rail as an implementation option, and applying frictional force directly to the rail is a predictable way to impede motion in a roller-guided rail system. This yields the expected result of braking/holding the carriage along the rail without requiring additional complex structures.
The linear transport system according to claim 4, wherein the movable element comprises a second brake pad, wherein the second brake pad contacts one of the rollers when the movable element is arranged in the first position.
CLAIM 8 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 4,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the linear transport system including guide rail 105, carriage 103 movable along the guide rail by linear motor 107, rollers 104 rolling on running surfaces 106, and a fixing device (brake device 10) that impedes movement along the guide rail.
With regard to “wherein the movable element comprises a second brake pad,” Reference 2 discloses a brake pad 18 as part of brake device 10 and further discloses variations in which the brake pad is applied to different surfaces, including the possibility that a brake pad presses against a roller of the moving element (Reference 2, brake pad 18; roller 6; disclosed variant pressing the roller). In the combined system, brake pad 18 corresponds to the claimed second brake pad when configured for roller contact.
With regard to “wherein the second brake pad contacts one of the rollers when the movable element is arranged in the first position,” Reference 2 expressly teaches that the brake pad may be pressed against the roller of the moving element (Reference 2, roller 6; brake pad 18). Applying this teaching to Reference 1’s carriage 103 having rollers 104 provides that in the brake-applied position (the first position), the brake pad contacts a roller to impede movement, thereby meeting the limitation.
CLAIM 8 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the brake pad to a carriage roller because Reference 2 explicitly identifies roller-contact braking as an alternative implementation, and roller-contact braking is a predictable mechanical interface that can create a strong braking effect without necessarily relying on rail surface geometry. Integrating this into Reference 1’s roller-guided carriage design yields the expected result of restricting wheel rotation and thereby restricting carriage motion.
The linear transport system according to claim 1, wherein the stationary unit comprises a stationary antenna and the movable unit comprises a movable antenna, wherein the movable unit comprises a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the fixing device based on a signal transmitted from the stationary antenna to the movable antenna.
CLAIM 9 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 1,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the transport system of claim 1 including a stationary portion (105, 111, 121) and a movable carriage 103 driven by linear motor 107 with moving magnets 117, contactless power transfer using coils 125 and 137, and a carriage-mounted fixing device based on Reference 2’s electromagnetic brake device 10.
With regard to “wherein the stationary unit comprises a stationary antenna and the movable unit comprises a movable antenna,” Reference 1 discloses contactless data transmission between stationary coil modules 121 and the carriage-coil module 123 using first data coils 127, 129, 131, 133, 135 on the stationary side and second data coils 139, 141, 143 on the carriage side (Reference 1, Fig. 2 and associated description of first data coils and second data coils forming communication channels). These data coils function as inductive communication elements that transmit and receive electromagnetic signals across an airgap, which corresponds to the claimed stationary antenna (stationary data coil(s) 127/129/131/133/135) and movable antenna (carriage data coil(s) 139/141/143) as broadly claimed.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises a controller,” Reference 1 discloses that the carriage includes a carriage-control device (controller) used to control carriage-side electrical devices based on received data (Reference 1, description of carriage-control device coupled to received data and electrical device operation). In addition, Reference 1 discloses control device 151 for contactless power/data transmission on the system side (Reference 1, control device 151). The claim requires a controller on the movable unit; Reference 1 teaches the presence of a carriage-side controller as part of the carriage electronics associated with the carriage-coil module 123.
With regard to “wherein the controller is configured to control the fixing device based on a signal transmitted from the stationary antenna to the movable antenna,” Reference 1 teaches that data (including control commands) may be transmitted contactlessly from stationary coils to the carriage via the inductive coupling between first data coils and second data coils (Reference 1, described communication channels formed by first and second data coils). Reference 2 teaches a fixing device (electromagnetic brake device 10) that is actuated by energizing or de-energizing coil 13 to release or apply braking (Reference 2, coil 13 controls brake pad 18 engagement). It would have been obvious to configure the carriage-side controller of Reference 1 to control the brake device actuation (energize/de-energize coil 13) based on received stationary-side control signals delivered via the stationary and carriage data coils (stationary “antenna” and movable “antenna”) because Reference 1 already contemplates remote control of carriage-side electrical devices using transmitted data, and Reference 2’s brake device is an electrically controllable carriage-side device whose timing and engagement are usefully commanded based on system state (e.g., stopping, holding, safety events). Thus, the limitation is satisfied by the combined teachings.
CLAIM 9 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Reference 1’s contactless data channel (first data coils 127/129/131/133/135 to second data coils 139/141/143) to command Reference 2’s electrically actuated brake (coil 13 controlling brake pad 18) because doing so is a predictable control integration: the system can issue a command to apply or release braking based on operating conditions (e.g., approaching a target position, safety stop, power-management state). Reference 1 already teaches transmitting control commands and operating carriage-side electrical devices using received data; applying that teaching to a carriage-mounted brake device yields the expected benefit of controlled fixing and release without physical communication wires, and without changing the fundamental operation of either subsystem.
======
CLAIMS 5–6: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The linear transport system according to claim 4, wherein said guide rail comprises bore holes for engaging the movable element, wherein the movable element is at least partially arranged in one of the bore holes in the first position.
CLAIM 5 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 4,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a linear transport system including guide rail 105, carriage 103 movable along the guide rail by linear motor 107, rollers 104 rolling on running surfaces 106, and a fixing device (brake device 10) which impedes movement along the guide rail, as explained above.
With regard to “wherein said guide rail comprises bore holes for engaging the movable element,” Reference 3 discloses a guide rail 1 provided with locking holes 31 (bore holes) along the rail (Reference 3, claims sheet and drawings identifying guide rail 1 and locking holes 31). These holes are expressly for engagement by a locking element.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is at least partially arranged in one of the bore holes in the first position,” Reference 3 discloses a positioning pin 32 (a movable locking element) that is inserted into (at least partially arranged within) a locking hole 31 to lock the moving body relative to the guide rail (Reference 3, drawings showing positioning pin 32 engaging locking hole 31; and reference numeral legend identifying 32 as the pin and 31 as the hole). This corresponds to the claimed movable element being at least partially arranged in one of the bore holes in the first position (the engaged/locked position).
Reference 1 does not require the guide rail 105 to have holes, and Reference 2’s brake device primarily teaches friction-based braking and also contemplates mechanical restraint by pressing against rail surfaces or rollers. However, Reference 3 teaches a positive mechanical locking interface between a rail and a moving unit using a pin-in-hole engagement. It would have been obvious to incorporate bore holes into Reference 1’s guide rail 105 and provide a corresponding movable element on the carriage (as part of, or in addition to, the fixing device) configured to at least partially engage the bore holes in a locked position, because pin-in-hole engagement is a predictable mechanical approach to achieving a more absolute fixation than friction alone, particularly for holding at specific positions and resisting drive forces.
CLAIM 5 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2 WITH REFERENCE 3)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to supplement the braking/fixing approach of Reference 2 with the positive locking structure of Reference 3 (locking hole 31 and positioning pin 32) when implementing a fixing device on Reference 1’s carriage because a pin-in-hole lock provides a predictable increase in holding reliability and resistance to external forces compared to friction braking alone. Reference 3 addresses securely locking a moving body relative to a guide rail using a simple mechanical engagement. Applying that concept to a linear transport carriage guided on a rail would have been an expected design choice to achieve robust mechanical fixation at discrete positions (e.g., for processing operations or safety hold), yielding predictable results.
The linear transport system according to claim 5, wherein the movable element is configured to fix the movable unit to withstand movements triggered by the drive.
CLAIM 6 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3)
With regard to “The linear transport system according to claim 5,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3 teaches the transport system including guide rail 105 and carriage 103 moved by linear motor 107, with rollers 104, and further modified such that the guide rail includes bore holes (locking holes 31) and the movable element (positioning pin 32) can engage those holes in a locked position, as explained above for claim 5.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is configured to fix the movable unit to withstand movements triggered by the drive,” Reference 3’s positioning pin 32 engaging locking hole 31 forms a positive mechanical engagement that resists relative motion between the moving body and the guide rail (Reference 3, pin 32 inserted into hole 31). This type of engagement inherently withstands applied forces that would otherwise move the moving body along the rail, because the pin-in-hole interface blocks translation until the pin is retracted.
In the combined system, the carriage 103 of Reference 1 is driven along the guide rail 105 by the linear motor 107. When the pin (corresponding to Reference 3’s 32) is engaged in a bore hole (corresponding to Reference 3’s 31) formed in the guide rail (corresponding to Reference 1’s 105), the carriage is fixed in place and thereby can withstand movement forces produced by the drive (linear motor 107), meeting the limitation.
CLAIM 6 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2 WITH REFERENCE 3)
It would have been obvious to configure the rail-engaging movable element to withstand drive-triggered movement because the reason to add a positive locking pin (32) engaging a rail hole (31) is precisely to provide a holding mechanism that resists translational forces, including forces produced by the drive system. The predictable result is a more secure fixation of the carriage against commanded or inadvertent drive forces than friction-based braking alone.
======
CLAIMS 10–13 AND 16–18: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A movable unit of a linear transport system, wherein a rotor is arranged on said movable unit and comprises one or a plurality of magnets, wherein the movable unit comprises an energy receiving coil, wherein the movable unit comprises a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is configured to fix fixing the movable unit in the linear transport system wherein the fixing device comprises a movable element, wherein the movable element is movable between a first position and a second position, and wherein the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable unit in the first position.
CLAIM 10 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “A movable unit of a linear transport system,” Reference 1 discloses a movable carriage 103 of a linear transport system 101 (Reference 1, Fig. 1; carriage 103). The carriage 103 corresponds to the claimed movable unit.
With regard to “wherein a rotor is arranged on said movable unit and comprises one or a plurality of magnets,” Reference 1 discloses that the rotor is arranged at the carriage 103 and comprises magnets (Reference 1, Fig. 3 showing magnets 117 on the carriage side; and description stating rotor at the carriage comprises magnets). Thus, the carriage includes a rotor portion having one or more magnets 117.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises an energy receiving coil,” Reference 1 discloses carriage-coil module 123 arranged on the carriage 103 and including a power-receiving coil 137 (Reference 1, Fig. 2; coil 137). This power-receiving coil corresponds to the claimed energy receiving coil.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises a fixing device, wherein the fixing device is configured to fix fixing the movable unit in the linear transport system,” Reference 2 discloses an electromagnetic brake device 10 fixed to the moving element 4, configured such that when the brake pad 18 is pressed against the stationary portion under spring force, movement of the moving element is prevented (Reference 2, brake device 10; brake pad 18; coil spring 17; mover 4). It would have been obvious to provide such a brake/fixing device on Reference 1’s carriage 103 to fix the movable unit within the linear transport system, for the same safety and positional holding reasons discussed above.
With regard to “wherein the fixing device comprises a movable element,” Reference 2 discloses a movable-side yoke 14, guided by pin 15 and groove 16 and movable relative to fixed-side yoke 11 (Reference 2, yoke 14; pin 15; groove 16; yoke 11). The movable-side yoke 14 and its attached brake pad 18 form the movable element portion of the fixing device.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is movable between a first position and a second position,” Reference 2 discloses movement between a brake-applied position (coil 13 demagnetized; spring 17 drives yoke 14 so brake pad 18 presses the stationary portion) and a brake-released position (coil 13 excited; yoke 14 attracted so brake pad 18 separates) (Reference 2, coil 13; spring 17; yokes 11/14; brake pad 18). These correspond to first and second positions.
With regard to “wherein the movable element triggers a mechanical fixing of the movable unit in the first position,” Reference 2 discloses that in the brake-applied position, brake pad 18 mechanically engages a stationary surface to generate braking force that prevents mover movement (Reference 2, brake pad 18 pressed against stator 1 under spring 17 force). In the combined system, this mechanical engagement fixes the carriage 103 relative to the stationary structure, satisfying the limitation.
CLAIM 10 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to equip the carriage of Reference 1 with the brake/fixing device of Reference 2 because Reference 2 directly addresses the hazard of motion upon power-off and provides a compact electromagnetic brake solution that mechanically fixes the moving element when de-energized. Applying that brake to the carriage of a linear transport system predictably improves safety and positional stability without requiring any unconventional redesign of Reference 1’s propulsion or power-transfer subsystems.
The movable unit according to claim 10, wherein the energy receiving coil is equipped to receive an energy from an energy transmitting coil.
CLAIM 11 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 10,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 including rotor magnets 117, a power-receiving coil 137, and a fixing device based on Reference 2’s brake device 10 including movable element 14 and brake pad 18 movable between brake-released and brake-applied positions as explained above.
With regard to “wherein the energy receiving coil is equipped to receive an energy from an energy transmitting coil,” Reference 1 expressly discloses that the carriage power-receiving coil 137 is arranged opposite a stationary power-transmitting coil 125 and is inductively coupled such that power is transmitted contactlessly from the stationary coil to the carriage (Reference 1, coils 125 and 137; described inductive coupling). Therefore, the energy receiving coil (137) is equipped to receive energy from an energy transmitting coil (125).
CLAIM 11 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
The motivation and rationale remain as in claim 10, with the additional limitation being explicitly taught by Reference 1’s inductive power-transfer system. Incorporation of Reference 2’s brake does not change the predictable operation of Reference 1’s energy receiving coil receiving energy from the stationary energy transmitting coil.
The movable unit according to claim 10, wherein the movable element is configured to be held in the second position with the aid of an electromagnet, wherein the electromagnet is configure to be supplied with a current with the aid of the energy receiving coil, wherein a reset element acts against a force generated by the electromagnet, and wherein movement of the movable element to the first position is adapted to be effected by the reset element.
CLAIM 12 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 10,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 including rotor magnets 117, power-receiving coil 137, and an added electromagnetic brake device (10) including movable-side yoke 14 and brake pad 18 that fixes the carriage in a brake-applied state.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is configured to be held in the second position with the aid of an electromagnet,” Reference 2 discloses that energizing coil 13 creates electromagnetic attraction between fixed-side yoke 11 and movable-side yoke 14, holding the movable-side yoke 14 in the brake-released position (Reference 2, coil 13; yokes 11/14; brake pad 18 separated from the stationary surface). This corresponds to holding the movable element in the second position using an electromagnet.
With regard to “wherein the electromagnet is configure to be supplied with a current with the aid of the energy receiving coil,” Reference 1 teaches that the carriage includes a power-receiving coil 137 that provides electrical energy to carriage-side components (Reference 1, power-receiving coil 137 supplying carriage-side devices). Reference 2 teaches that coil 13 is supplied with current to actuate the brake release. It would have been obvious to supply the electromagnet coil (13) from the carriage’s available electrical power derived from the energy receiving coil 137 because coil 13 is a carriage-mounted electrical load and Reference 1’s architecture is expressly for powering carriage-mounted electrical devices.
With regard to “wherein a reset element acts against a force generated by the electromagnet,” Reference 2 discloses coil spring 17 which biases the movable-side yoke 14 toward the brake-applied configuration and therefore acts against electromagnetic attraction when coil 13 is energized (Reference 2, coil spring 17 opposing attraction).
With regard to “wherein movement of the movable element to the first position is adapted to be effected by the reset element,” Reference 2 discloses that when coil 13 is de-energized, coil spring 17 drives the movable-side yoke 14 such that brake pad 18 presses the stationary surface and braking is applied (Reference 2, coil spring 17 moves yoke 14; brake pad 18 applies brake). This corresponds to spring-driven movement into the first position.
CLAIM 12 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to supply current to Reference 2’s electromagnet coil 13 using the carriage power obtained through Reference 1’s energy receiving coil 137 because Reference 1’s contactless power system is designed to power carriage-side electrical loads, and Reference 2’s brake release function is an electrically actuated function located on the moving unit. The combination predictably yields a carriage with a brake that is held released during powered operation and automatically engages when power to the electromagnet is removed.
The movable unit according to claim 10, wherein the movable unit is movable along a guide rail of the linear transport system by a drive, wherein the movable unit comprises rollers, wherein the rollers roll on running surfaces of the guide rail, and wherein movement along the guide rail is impeded by the fixing device.
CLAIM 13 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 10,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 including rotor magnets 117, energy receiving coil 137, and a fixing device based on brake device 10.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit is movable along a guide rail of the linear transport system by a drive,” Reference 1 discloses that the carriage 103 is movable along guide rail 105 by linear motor 107 (Reference 1, guide rail 105; linear motor 107 driving carriage 103).
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises rollers, wherein the rollers roll on running surfaces of the guide rail,” Reference 1 expressly discloses rollers 104 on carriage 103 rolling on running surfaces 106 of guide rail 105 (Reference 1, Fig. 3; rollers 104; running surfaces 106).
With regard to “wherein movement along the guide rail is impeded by the fixing device,” Reference 2 discloses that applying the brake device 10 (brake pad 18 pressed under spring 17 force) prevents mover 4 movement (Reference 2, brake device 10; brake pad 18; spring 17). Reference 2 further teaches that brake pad contact can be applied to the guide rail or to a roller (Reference 2, disclosed variants). Therefore, in the combined system, the fixing device impedes movement along the guide rail, satisfying the limitation.
CLAIM 13 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to impede carriage movement along a guide rail using the brake device of Reference 2 because Reference 2 provides a known mechanical braking interface suitable for rail-guided motion systems, and applying braking to a driven carriage yields predictable improvements in stopping performance and safety upon power interruption or commanded stops.
The movable unit of claim 13, wherein the movable element comprises a first brake pad, wherein the first brake pad is movable towards the guide rail when the movable element is moved towards the first position.
CLAIM 16 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit of claim 13,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 movable along guide rail 105 by linear motor 107 with rollers 104 on running surfaces 106 and includes a fixing device (brake device 10) that impedes motion.
With regard to “wherein the movable element comprises a first brake pad,” Reference 2 discloses brake pad 18 attached to movable-side yoke 14 of brake device 10 (Reference 2, brake pad 18; yoke 14). This corresponds to a first brake pad carried by the movable element.
With regard to “wherein the first brake pad is movable towards the guide rail when the movable element is moved towards the first position,” Reference 2 discloses that when coil 13 is demagnetized, coil spring 17 drives movable-side yoke 14 such that brake pad 18 presses the stationary portion (Reference 2, coil spring 17; brake pad 18 pressed). Reference 2 further discloses that the brake pad may press a surface of the guide rail (Reference 2, guide rail 2 mentioned as a possible contact surface). Accordingly, in the combined system with a guide rail (Reference 1, 105), movement of the movable element toward the first position causes the brake pad to move toward and into contact with the guide rail, meeting the limitation.
CLAIM 16 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to implement a brake pad that moves toward the guide rail as the movable element moves toward the brake-applied position because Reference 2 explicitly teaches the brake pad approach and identifies rail contact as an implementation option. This configuration yields the predictable result of frictional braking and holding using a simple movable pad mechanism.
The movable unit according to claim 13, wherein the movable element comprises a second brake pad, wherein the second brake pad contacts one of the rollers when the movable element is arranged in the first position.
CLAIM 17 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 13,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the carriage 103 movable on guide rail 105 by drive (linear motor 107) and having rollers 104, and includes a fixing device as described.
With regard to “wherein the movable element comprises a second brake pad,” Reference 2 discloses brake pad 18 as part of brake device 10 and teaches alternative braking configurations, including use of a brake pad to contact a roller of the moving element (Reference 2, brake pad 18; roller 6; statement that brake pad may be pressed against the roller). The brake pad corresponds to the claimed second brake pad when implemented for roller contact.
With regard to “wherein the second brake pad contacts one of the rollers when the movable element is arranged in the first position,” Reference 2’s disclosed roller-contact braking configuration provides that, in the brake-applied position (the first position), the brake pad is pressed against a roller to suppress roller rotation (Reference 2, brake pad 18; roller 6; brake-applied state when coil 13 demagnetized and spring 17 applies force). Applying that teaching to Reference 1’s carriage rollers 104 yields that the second brake pad contacts a roller in the first position, meeting the limitation.
CLAIM 17 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
It would have been obvious to configure the brake pad to contact a roller because Reference 2 explicitly teaches roller-contact braking as an alternative, and this produces the predictable result of inhibiting wheel rotation and thereby inhibiting movement of the carriage without requiring modification of the rail surface.
The movable unit according to claim 10, wherein the movable unit comprises a movable antenna, and wherein the movable unit comprises a controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the fixing device based on a signal received from the movable antenna.
CLAIM 18 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 10,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 including rotor magnets 117, energy receiving coil 137, and a fixing device based on brake device 10 including movable element 14 and brake pad 18.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises a movable antenna,” Reference 1 discloses that the carriage-coil module 123 includes second data coils 139, 141, 143 that are inductively coupled with stationary first data coils to transmit/receive data contactlessly (Reference 1, Fig. 2; second data coils 139/141/143). These carriage-side inductive communication elements correspond to a movable antenna as broadly claimed, because they receive electromagnetic signals across a gap.
With regard to “wherein the movable unit comprises a controller,” Reference 1 discloses that the carriage includes a carriage-control device for controlling carriage-side electrical devices based on received data (Reference 1, description of carriage-control device controlling electrical device operation based on received data). This corresponds to the claimed controller on the movable unit.
With regard to “wherein the controller is configured to control the fixing device based on a signal received from the movable antenna,” Reference 1 teaches that carriage-side data coils receive data from stationary coils, including control commands (Reference 1, communication channels). Reference 2 teaches that the fixing device (brake device 10) is electrically actuated by energizing/de-energizing coil 13, changing the brake state (Reference 2, coil 13 controls brake pad 18 engagement). It would have been obvious to configure Reference 1’s carriage-side controller to control the brake device actuation based on received signals obtained through the carriage-side data coils (movable antenna), because controlling carriage-mounted electrical devices based on received signals is explicitly contemplated in Reference 1, and brake actuation is a desirable controlled function for stopping/holding the carriage.
CLAIM 18 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to control the brake actuation based on received carriage-side data because Reference 1 already provides a contactless communication mechanism to send control commands to the carriage, and Reference 2’s brake is an electrically controlled subsystem whose controlled actuation is predictably useful for operational braking, holding, and safety stops. The predictable result is a carriage that can be commanded to apply or release mechanical fixing without additional mechanical linkages or wired communication.
======
CLAIMS 14–15: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The movable unit according to claim 13, wherein the movable element is configured to at least partially engage a bore hole of the guide rail in the first position.
CLAIM 14 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 13,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches a carriage 103 movable along a guide rail 105 by linear motor 107 and having rollers 104 rolling on running surfaces 106, with a fixing device based on brake device 10 as explained above.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is configured to at least partially engage a bore hole of the guide rail in the first position,” Reference 3 discloses a rail locking arrangement in which a positioning pin 32 engages (is inserted into) a locking hole 31 formed in guide rail 1 (Reference 3, locking hole 31; positioning pin 32; drawings showing engagement). This engagement constitutes at least partial placement of the movable element (pin 32) within a bore hole (hole 31) when in the locked/engaged position (corresponding to the first position).
Applying Reference 3’s pin-in-hole locking structure to Reference 1’s carriage/guide rail environment would have been obvious as an additional or alternative fixing mechanism beyond friction braking, particularly where a discrete-position positive lock is desired.
CLAIM 14 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2 WITH REFERENCE 3)
It would have been obvious to configure the movable element to engage a bore hole in the guide rail in the locked position because Reference 3 provides a simple and predictable positive-locking mechanism (31, 32) for fixing a moving body relative to a guide rail. Incorporating such a mechanism into a carriage-on-rail linear transport system predictably enhances the ability to hold position under load and resist drift or movement when immobilization is required.
The movable unit according to claim 14, wherein the movable element is configured to fix the movable unit to withstand movements triggered by the drive.
CLAIM 15 — DETAILED LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS (REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3)
With regard to “The movable unit according to claim 14,” Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3 teaches a carriage 103 movable along guide rail 105 by linear motor 107 and having rollers 104, and further modified to include a movable element (pin 32 analog) that can engage a bore hole (hole 31 analog) in the guide rail in a locked position, as explained above.
With regard to “wherein the movable element is configured to fix the movable unit to withstand movements triggered by the drive,” Reference 3’s engaged pin 32 in hole 31 prevents relative translation along the rail until the pin is retracted, thereby resisting forces that would move the moving body (Reference 3, pin 32 engaged in hole 31). In the combined system, the carriage is driven by a linear motor (Reference 1, 107), and when the pin engages a rail hole, the carriage is fixed in place and can withstand movement forces that would otherwise be triggered by the drive, meeting the limitation.
CLAIM 15 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / OBVIOUSNESS RATIONALE (REFERENCE 1 WITH REFERENCE 2 WITH REFERENCE 3)
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to ensure the engaged locking element withstands drive forces because the practical reason for adding a pin-in-hole rail lock is to resist translational forces, including those generated by a drive motor attempting to move the carriage. The predictable result is a secure, robust fixation that is not dependent solely on frictional braking.
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