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) 1, 3-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,863,753 to Shank.
Regarding claim 1 Shank discloses a container handling system for a transportation vehicle, the container handling system comprising: a conveyer belt arranged in a closed loop (18), and a container holding arrangement (see figure 3) comprising a first structure (42/44) connected to, and movable along, the conveyer belt around the closed loop, and a second structure (below 34, 16/53 etc. see figures 3-4) configured to attach the container holding arrangement to a container, wherein the second structure comprises a hook cover attached to the first structure (53/45), and a pair of brackets (43) configured to mechanically connect the second structure to the container, each of the pair of brackets being pivotably movable relative to the hook cover between a released state (see figure 3) in which a first portion of the bracket is arranged at a distance from an abutment surface of the hook cover (see upper angled surface of 43 in figure 1), and a locked state (see figure 4) in which the first portion, when subject to a force causing the pivotable movement of the bracket, is arranged in abutment with the abutment surface of the hook cover (see figure 4 where upper surfaces of 43 are in contact with 52). It is noted that the transportation vehicle is a recitation of intended use and nothing in the claim requires it as an element or specifically relates the container handling system to the vehicle in a manner that would require its presence.
Regarding claim 3 Shank discloses the hook cover comprises a pair of pivot joints, each bracket being pivotably connected to a respective one of the pivot joints (see axis 48a).
Regarding claim 4 Shank discloses each bracket comprises a second portion, the second portion comprising a protruding member configured to attach to the container when the bracket assumes the locked state (see 49 engaging article, figure 4).
Regarding claim 5 Shank discloses the second structure is movably connected to the first structure (see 56, entire bottom structure can rotate relative to the top portion).
Regarding claim 8 Shank discloses the first structure comprises at least two wheels (44) connecting the first structure to the conveyer belt.
Regarding claim 9 Shank discloses comprising the container (22), the container having an upper end facing the hook cover and a pair of side surfaces (left and right side of 22) extending vertically from the upper end towards a lower end, wherein each of the side surfaces comprises an indentation (see 54 and figure 4), the indentation being attached to the bracket when the bracket assumes the locked state (see figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shank.
Regarding claim 2 Shank discloses each bracket is biased to assume the released state when the first portion is un-subject to the force causing the pivotable movement of the bracket (see figure 3 and col. 1 lines 63-66).
Shank does not disclose that the brackets are spring loaded to cause the desired biasing into the open position.
That said, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Shank to include that the brackets are spring loaded to cause the desired biasing into the open position because the use of springs for biasing moving parts is well known and doing so would provide additional biasing force (in addition to gravity) to ensure correction operation if friction or other wear increases the resistance to rotation of the moving parts 43. See MPEP 2144.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
Claims 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 10, the incorporation of the handling system into a vehicle differentiates the claims from the prior art. Regarding claim 6 the cable connecting the first and second structures to each other differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other instances of systems for circulating objects carried by vehicles or arrangement for gripping objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights