DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-30, 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160046450 (herein Fourney).
Regarding claim 21, Fourney teaches A shipping package scuff test assembly (conveyor system, [0007], Fig. 1) comprising:
an inclined plane (see plan along top of inclined conveyor belt in Fig. 2 and described in [0015]);
a plurality of objects arranged to extend outward from an upper surface of the inclined plane (stop elements 20, [0015]); and
one or more conveyors positioned relative to the inclined plane to receive a shipping package from a lower end of the inclined plane and convey the shipping package to a raised end of the inclined plane (belts 12, 18, and 24, [0014]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 22, Fourney teaches wherein the one or more conveyors are configured to change an orientation of the shipping package as the shipping package is conveyed from the lower end to the raised end of the incline plane (Fig. 2 and [0016] teaches change of orientation of packages F and N from belt 12 to belt 24).
Regarding claim 23, Fourney teaches wherein at least two conveyors of the one or more conveyors form a junction that serves to change an orientation of the shipping package as the shipping package is conveyed across the junction (Fig. 2 teaches corresponding junction between belts 12 and 18, and belts 18 and 24).
Regarding claim 26, Fourney teaches wherein the upper surface of the inclined plane comprises at least one of a steel, an aluminum, a rigid plastic, a wood, or a fiberglass (tilted conveyor belt can be realized as a modular plastic friction-top belt, such as an INTRALOX® Series 1400 Friction Top belt, [0016]; Note: INTRALOX® Series 1400 Friction Top belt is a rigid plastic).
Regarding claim 27, Fourney teaches a coating on the upper surface of the incline plane, the coating configured to alter a property of the upper surface (outer conveying surface 26 of these modular high-friction belts is largely covered by a high-friction elastomer, [0016]).
Regarding claim 28, Fourney teaches wherein the property of the upper surface comprises at least one of a toughness, a durability, or a coefficient of friction (tilted conveyor belt can be realized as a flat rubber belt or a modular plastic friction-top belt, such as an INTRALOX® Series 1400 Friction Top belt or an INTRALOX® Series 900 Diamond Friction Top belt, [0016]; Note that these belts inherently have a coefficient of friction).
Regarding claim 29, Fourney teaches wherein the plurality of objects comprise at least one of square-shaped blocks, rectangle-shaped blocks, or triangle-shaped blocks (stop elements 20 in [0015] are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 as rectangular).
Regarding claim 30, Fourney teaches wherein the plurality of objects comprise corners oriented to contact the shipping package as the shipping package moves across the inclined plane (Fig. 2 shows corners of stops 20 contacting packages F and N).
Regarding claim 36, Fourney teaches wherein the plurality of objects are arranged across the upper surface in one or more of a hexagonal pattern, a linear pattern, a triangular pattern, a square pattern, a rectangular pattern, or a pentagonal pattern (Fig. 1 shows linear pattern of stops 20).
Regarding claim 37, Fourney teaches wherein the plurality of objects are arranged in multiple sets of patterns (stops elements 20 shown in Figs. 1-2 are shown arranged for example as 4 sets of two).
Regarding claim 38, Fourney teaches wherein the multiple sets of patterns include one or more of two hexagons or a figure-eight (INTRALOX® Series 900 Diamond Friction Top belt, [0016]; Note that this particular belt teaches both hexagonal and figure-eight patterns).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2528868 (herein Dederich).
Regarding claim 41, Dederich teaches A shipping package wear test assembly comprising:
a conveyor configured to move a shipping package between a first end of the conveyor and a second end of the conveyor (conveyor 22, Col. 2, Line 26); and
a plate positioned between the first end and the second end of the conveyor (gate unit 16, Col. 2, Line 14), the plate movable between a first position and a second position over a portion of the conveyor (gate unit 16 may be raised or lowered, Col. 2, Line 32), when the plate is in the first position, the plate obstructs movement of the shipping package but permits movement of the conveyor relative to the shipping package (raised position as shown in solid lines of Fig. 1), and when the plate is in the second position, movement of the shipping package along the conveyor is not obstructed (operating position 26 as shown in dotted lines of Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US 4792134 (herein Chen).
Regarding claim 24, Fourney does not appear to teach, “wherein an inclination angle of the inclined plane is adjustable.” However, Chen teaches it is known in the art to incorporate adjusting of a belt slope/tilt angle with the use of motor-gear combination (Col. 2, Lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 25, Fourney does not appear to teach, “a gear assembly coupled to the inclined plane, the gear assembly configured to adjust the inclination angle of the inclined plane.” However, Chen teaches it is known in the art to incorporate a gear 132 coupled to a plane 1 to adjustment of slope (Col. 3, Line 14).
For claims 24-25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the adjusting mechanism of Chen into the belt 18 of conveyor system of Fourney. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of adjusting angle sufficient to allow larger non-flat packages and even flat packages at the top of a stack to tumble or slide backward until they reach the stop elements (Fourney, [0015]).
Claim(s) 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US 20200140198 (herein Bacon).
Regarding claim 31, Fourney does not teach, “wherein a radius of the corners is between 0.0625 inches and 0.125 inches.” However, Bacon teaches a cleat installed on a belt having a radius of curvature R5 about 1/16” to 1/2" ([0226]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the curvature of Bacon into the stops of Fourney. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of accommodating a particular size and shape of an article ([0012]).
Regarding claim 32, Fourney does not teach, “wherein: a height of each of the plurality of objects is between 0.125 inches and 0.25 inches; a length of each of the plurality of objects is between 2.00 inches and 8.00 inches; and a width 132 of each of the plurality of objects is between 1.00 inch and 4.00 inches.” However, Bacon teaches a cleat installed on a belt having a height H2 of 1/4", a width L1 of 2”, and a length W2 of 5” ([0206]-[0208]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the stated dimensions of Bacon into the stops of Fourney. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of accommodating a particular size and shape of an article ([0012]).
Regarding claim 33, Fourney does not teach, “wherein the plurality of objects are made of wood, metal, or plastic.” However, Bacon teaches cleats may be urethane or other hard material, e.g., plastic, hard rubber, metal, etc. ([0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the stop material of Fourney with the material taught by Bacon because both are designed to adequatey guide articles along a conveyor belt. The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 34, Fourney does not teach, “wherein the plurality of objects are detachable from the upper surface of the inclined plane.” However, Bacon teaches a cleat removably attached with a nut 1510 and bolt 1520 ([0205]).
Regarding claim 35, Fourney does not teach, “wherein the plurality of objects are fastened to the inclined plane by at least one of bolts, screws, glue, or hook and loop fasteners.” However, Bacon teaches a cleat demovably attached with a nut 1510 and bolt 1520 ([0205]).
For claims 34-35, these limitation of simply making an element separable and based on MPEP 2144.04 V C, separable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over prior art unless there are new or unexpected results. See In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 39 and dependents thereof, the prior art does not teach, “further comprising: a one or more sensors; and a controller operatively coupled to the shipping package scuff test assembly and in communication with the one or more sensors, the controller configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the one or more sensors, data signals representing a condition of the shipping package scuff test assembly; determining to change an operation of the shipping package scuff test assembly based on the data signals; and changing the operation of the shipping package scuff test assembly.” Fourney is silent regarding any scuff test results. CN 211122386 U (herein Ying) teaches a similar scuff test device with a belt 13 and protrusions 7, but does not teach the above quoted limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852