00DETAILED 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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 September 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Foreign Patent Document FR 2197087 A1 does not have a concise explanation of relevance or English translation, as per 37 CFR 1.98(3). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
In regards to claim 7, the limitations “a first route guide extending along a first path and a second route guide extending along a second path” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the first or second route guide and paths are the same or different from the previously recited “route guide extending along a path.”
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, 3-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metcalf (US 3782292 A).
In regards to claim 1, Metcalf discloses an arrangement of a production facility comprising:
a carrier vehicle (12) (Fig. 2), the carrier vehicle provided for automatic transportation of materials or workpieces (col. 16, lines 1-3) in the production facility;
a guide system (10) (Fig. 2) comprising a route guide (61) (Fig. 6) extending along a path (11, 13) (Fig. 4) for the carrier vehicle, the guide system further comprising vehicle guide elements (83) (Fig. 6) on the carrier vehicle;
wherein the guide system is configured in such a way that a guide function (col. 13, lines 6-18) of the guide system limits a degree of freedom of a translational movability of the carrier vehicle during an interaction (as seen in Fig. 4) of the route guide with the vehicle guide elements apart from a limited movement play to a translational movability along the path (col. 13, lines 6-18) and the guide function may be cancelled (col. 8, lines 59-68) at least in portions along the path by a movability of the route guide out of a guide position (as seen in Fig. 2), and may be activated by a movability of the route guide into the guide position (col. 8, lines 59-63).
In regards to claim 3, Metcalf discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the guide system is a mechanical (col. 8, lines 59-63) guide system.
In regards to claim 4, Metcalf discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the vehicle guide elements comprise at least two rollers (83c, 84c) (Fig. 15) and the route guide comprises two rails (61c, 49c).
In regards to claim 5, Metcalf discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein an activation or a cancelation of the guide function taking place by a movability (col. 8, lines 59-63) of the route guide.
In regards to claim 6, Metcalf discloses the arrangement of claim 1, wherein the route guide comprises a translationally movable configuration (as seen in Fig. 6) at least in a switch portion (13) (Fig. 4) transversely with respect to the path (11) for an activation or a cancelation of the guide function.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf (US 3782292 A) in view of Kyutoku (US 20080127851 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Metcalf teaches the arrangement of claim 1, further comprising:
Metcalf does not teach a linear motor route configured along the path, wherein the linear motor route interacts magnetically with magnets that are attached to the carrier vehicle, wherein the carrier vehicle may be driven along the path using the linear motor route.
Kyutoku teaches a linear motor route (3) (Fig. 3) configured along the path (10), wherein the linear motor route interacts magnetically with magnets (34) that are attached to the carrier vehicle (30), wherein the carrier vehicle may be driven along the path (para. [0041]) using the linear motor route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Metcalf to include a linear motor route and magnets attached to the carrier vehicle as taught by Kyutoku with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the smoothness of travel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) and Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf (US 3782292 A).
In regards to claim 7, A switch comprising:
an arrangement comprising:
a carrier vehicle (12) (Fig. 2), the carrier vehicle provided for automatic transportation of materials or workpieces (col. 16, lines 1-3) in a production facility; and
a guide system (10) (Fig. 2) comprising a route guide (61) (Fig. 6) extending along a path (11, 13) (Fig. 4) for the carrier vehicle, the guide system further comprising vehicle guide elements (83) (Fig. 6) on the carrier vehicle;
wherein the guide system is configured in such a way that a guide function (col. 13, lines 6-18) of the guide system limits a degree of freedom of a translational movability of the carrier vehicle during an interaction (as seen in Fig. 4) of the route guide with the vehicle guide elements apart from a limited movement play to a translational movability along the path (col. 13, lines 6-18) and the guide function may be cancelled (col. 8, lines 59-68) at least in portions along the path by a movability of the route guide out of a guide position (as seen in Fig. 2), and may be activated by a movability of the route guide into the guide position (col. 8, lines 59-63);
wherein the guide system further comprises, for the carrier vehicle, a first route guide (61c) (Fig. 15) extending along a first path (19) (Fig. 19) and a second route guide (49c) (Fig. 15) extending along a second path (20) (Fig. 19), wherein the carrier vehicle comprises first vehicle guide element (83c) (Fig. 15) for the first route guide and second vehicle guide element (84c) for the second route guide, wherein the first route guide, the second route guide, the first vehicle guide element and the second vehicle guide element are arranged in such a way that paths (19, 20) of the carrier vehicle along a switch portion
Metcalf does not explicitly teach wherein the paths of the carrier vehicle are identical due to the arrangement of the first and second route guides and vehicle guide elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second route guides and vehicle guide elements in such a way that the first and second paths are identical with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing homogeneity and ease of assembly of the system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regards to claim 8, note that the operation of the prior structure of apparatus claim 7 inherently requires method steps as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (US 20240083256 A1) discloses a system and method for controlling the direction of a vehicle in an independent cart system.
Houck (CN 110733898 A) discloses a long stator linear motor.
Ehmann (WO 2019096427 A1) discloses a magnetic levitation system, vacuum system, and method of transporting a carrier with a vertically moving stabilization device.
Murakami (CN 108569523 A) discloses an articles transporting device.
Wada (US 9895977 B2) discloses an article transport facility.
Mukai (KR 20140034935 A) discloses a vehicle pick-up and delivery device and track-based transportation system.
Ogawa (US 20130313070 A1) discloses an article transport facility with a moveable switch.
Kokuro (CN 101844680 A) discloses a path switching device.
Tsubaki (JP 2004314740 A) discloses a conveyance device with a switch track.
Matsukawa (JP 2002087250 A) discloses a carrying facility.
Kawano (US 6095054 A) discloses a transport system wherein the guide wheel elements rise and lower.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615