DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-13 and 17-26 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 22, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, lines 8-9, “an extension member” would be better recited as “a first extension member”.
-Claim 1, lines 10-11, “the first carrier section and the second carrier section” would be better recited as “the at least one first carrier section and the at least one second carrier section”.
-Claim 1, lines 13-14 “an upper body…carrier assembly includes” should be further indented.
-Claim 22, lines 7-8 and 11-17 should be further indented.
-Claim 23, lines 5-11 should be further indented to clarify the vehicles are included in the “container shuttle assembly”.
-Claim 23, line 10, “liner” should be “linear”.
-Claim 24, lines 5-9 should have one less indent and lines 10-14 should be further indented as the structures are part of the shuttle assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites “each transport vehicle further includes an upper body, the upper body includes a first carrier section extending in a first direction, a portion of the upper body extends in an opposite direction of the first carrier section”. This limitation is viewed as constituting new matter for multiple reasons. First, there is not sufficient support for “the upper body includes a first carrier section” as per Para. 0057, “The carrier assembly 264 is positioned on and secured to the upper planar surface 254a of the upper body 254” and therefore carrier assembly (which includes the carrier sections) is not comprised by the upper body as claimed. Second, there is not sufficient support for the “upper body extends in an opposite direction of the first carrier section”. Attention can be brought to Figures 14, 15 which depict the upper body “254” and the carrier sections as “266” or “268”. When considering the term “extending” in view of the specification, one would readily view the direction of extension of the carrier sections as being in the direction in which the finger members extend and the direction in which the upper body extends as being transverse to such direction. Therefore, there is not sufficient support for such a limitation and it is further unclear what is meant by such a limitation (note 112(b) rejection below).
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites similar limitations that constitute new matter for the same reasoning outlined above. Claim 26 further recites on lines 14-16, “a holding block positioned between the first carrier section and the portion of the upper body” which also constitutes new matter as such a limitation is not sufficiently supported in the original specification as the holding block “272” as depicted in Figures 14-15 is clearly not positioned such that it can be viewed as “between” a carrier section (266, 268) and the upper body (254).
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, 3-13, 17-21, and 23-26 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “each shuttle of the plurality of shuttles further includes at least one first carrier section and at least one second carrier section extending in an opposite direction of the first carrier section”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear, in light of the specification what is meant by the second carrier section extending in an opposite direction of the first carrier section because as shown in Figure 14, the first carrier section (266) has extension members (266a, 266b) extending in opposite directions as does the second carrier section (268 see extension members 268a, 268b). Therefore, it is unclear as to what is meant by the second carrier section extending in an opposite direction as the first carrier section. This also introduces confusion as to what Applicant is intending to refer to by the term “carrier section”.
Further regarding Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “the carrier assembly includes: a pair of first carrier sections…a second carrier section”. These limitations render the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not these “pair of first carrier sections” and “second carrier section” is comprised by the defined “at least one first carrier section” and “at least one second carrier section” previously defined in Claim 1 or if the carrier sections are intended to be in addition to those previously recited in Claim 1. Further, “the carrier assembly” lacks antecedent basis within the claim and therefore renders the claim further indefinite. Line 20 recites “a carrier assembly” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is a separate carrier assembly than the previously recited “the carrier assembly”.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites “the second carrier section includes a front extension member and a rear extension member extending in opposite directions from a center thereof” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the front and rear extension members are referring to the same or different extension members defined in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites “each vehicle having: a carrier section having a pair of opposing end portions having a first pair of end portions and a second pair of end portions”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what relation the “pair of opposed end portions” have with the first and second pair of end portions and if both the first and second end portions are comprised by the opposed pair. The manner in which the claim is drafted appears to refer to the “pair of opposing end portions” comprising both the first and second pairs of end portions but it is unclear as to how one pair of opposing end portions can comprise both a first pair and a second pair of end portions. Further, it is not clear, in light of the specifications, what is attempting to be encompassed by the carrier section and the end portions. Note for example, in view of the specification, the “carrier section” is referred to as “266” and “268” in the Figures such as Figures 12-14 and none of these carrier sections (266, 268) would appear to have multiple pairs of end portions as the term “end portion” is not recited in the specification and therefore it is unclear if this is referring to the extension members or some other structure.
Further regarding Claim 23, lines 9-11 recite “holding block extending across a width of the carrier section and positioned vertically between the pair of opposing end portions and extending away from the liner synchronous motor guideway”. This limitation renders the claim further indefinite as it is unclear as to what is meant by the holding block being “positioned vertically between the pair of opposing end portions”. It would appear that the Applicant is attempting to refer to the block extending vertically and being positioned between the end portions but this is not readily clear and cannot be readily assumed.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites similar indefinite limitations as that of Claim 23 and is therefore rendered indefinite for the same reasoning as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites “each transport vehicle further includes an upper body, the upper body includes a first carrier section extending in a first direction, a portion of the upper body extends in an opposite direction of the first carrier section”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as it is unclear as to what is meant by a portion of the upper body extending in a direction opposite to the carrier section in light of the specification (see 112(a) rejection for further reference).
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites similar indefinite limitations as Claim 25 and therefore is rendered indefinite for the same reasoning outlined above.
Further regarding Claim 26, lines 14-16 recite “a holding block positioned between the first carrier section and the portion of the upper body” which renders the claim further indefinite as it is unclear as to what is meant by the holding block being positioned between the upper body and the carrier section in light of the specification.
Claims 3-13, 17-19 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from at least one of the claims outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bellante (US PGPUB 2016/0207658).
Regarding Claim 25, Bellante discloses an adaptive container packaging assembly (1; Figure 1), comprising:
a container forming assembly (2) providing sized containers (15; Figure 3; see Para. 0052 and 0074 which discloses the boxes being formed and provided and it is noted that the forming assembly is clearly capable of providing varying sized containers);
a container shuttle assembly (conveyor 5) positioned adjacent to the container forming assembly (2) and having:
a motor guideway (10) shaped in an endless loop (path 10; note Para. 0058 discloses the linear motor forms a path 10 and therefore the guideway will be referred to as 10; see Paras. 0058-0060; note Para. 0060 discloses the endless path shown in Figure 2);
a plurality of transport vehicles (movers 11; Para. 0058, 0063) positioned along the motor guideway (10; Para. 0058, 0063);
each transport vehicle (11) of the plurality of transport vehicles (11) includes a first pair of guide rollers positioned on a first end (longitudinal edge/end) of the guideway (10) and a second pair of guide rollers positioned on a second end (longitudinal edge/end) of the guideway (10), the pairs of guide rollers positioned adjacent and on a top portion of the guideway (10; see “Annotated View of Figures 1 and 3” below; note that each mover 11a, 11b clearly has a pair of rollers on each longitudinal side of the guideway 10 and in order to function as disclosed and shown, guide rollers must be positioned on both longitudinal sides/ends of the guideway), each transport vehicle further includes an upper body (as shown below), the upper body includes a first carrier section (attached thereto) extending in a first direction (i.e. upward), a portion of the upper body extends in an opposite direction (i.e. downward) of the first carrier section (“carrier section” shown below; note the 112 rejections);
a product transport assembly (loading section 3) having a robot arm (8) to position product within the sized containers (15) while on a transport vehicle (11) of the plurality of transport vehicles (11; see Para. 0053; note Para. 0052 discloses the containers being positioned upstream of the loading section 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
209
267
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Views of Figures 1 and 3
Regarding Claim 26, Bellante discloses an adaptive container packaging assembly (1; Figure 1), comprising:
a container forming assembly (2) providing sized containers (15; Figure 3; see Para. 0052 and 0074 which discloses the boxes being formed and provided and it is noted that the forming assembly is clearly capable of providing varying sized containers);
a container shuttle assembly (conveyor 5) having:
a motor guideway (10) shaped in an endless loop (path 10; note Para. 0058 discloses the linear motor forms a path 10 and therefore the guideway will be referred to as 10; see Paras. 0058-0060; note Para. 0060 discloses the endless path shown in Figure 2);
a plurality of transport vehicles (movers 11; Para. 0058, 0063) positioned along the motor guideway (10; Para. 0058, 0063), each transport vehicle (11) providing a carrier section (carrier/support section of 30 as shown); and
each transport vehicle (11) of the plurality of transport vehicles (11) includes a first pair of guide rollers positioned on a first end (longitudinal edge/end) of the guideway (10) and a second pair of guide rollers positioned on a second end (longitudinal edge/end) of the guideway (10) in a shared longitudinal plane (see “Annotated View of Figures 1 and 3” above; note that each mover 11a, 11b clearly has a pair of rollers on each longitudinal side of the guideway 10 and in order to function as disclosed and shown, guide rollers must be positioned on both longitudinal sides/ends of the guideway such that they are positioned in a shared longitudinal plane), each guide roller of the first pair of guide rollers and the second pair of guide rollers are in continuous contact with the motor guideway (10 as shown), each transport vehicle further includes an upper body (as shown below as a frame portion supporting rollers; see “Further Annotated View of Figure 3” below), the upper body includes a first carrier section (see below) extending in a first direction (i.e. upward), a portion of the upper body extends in an opposite direction (i.e. downward) of the first carrier section (“carrier section” shown below; note the 112 rejections),
a holding block (portion supporting “carrier section” below) positioned between the first carrier section (“carrier section”) and the portion of the upper body, the holding block extending vertically away from the motor guideway (10 as shown below; note that the claimed invention does not specify any further structure or function of the holding block so any block form can be readily viewed as a holding block such as the structure depicted below; note the 112 rejections above);
a product transport assembly (loading section 3) having a robot arm (8) to position product within the sized containers (15) while on a transport vehicle (11) of the plurality of transport vehicles (11; see Para. 0053; note Para. 0052 discloses the containers being positioned upstream of the loading section 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
203
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further Annotated View of Figure 3
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.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellante (US PGPUB 2016/0207658), in view of Hurni (US PGPUB 2015/0136564).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Bellante discloses an adaptive container packaging assembly (1; Figure 1), comprising:
a container forming assembly (2; see Para. 0052 and 0074 which discloses the boxes being formed and provided and it is noted that the forming assembly is clearly capable of providing varying sized containers);
a container shuttle assembly (conveyor 5) positioned adjacent to the container forming assembly (2) and having:
a linear synchronous motor guideway (path 10; note Para. 0058 discloses the linear motor forms a path 10 and therefore the guideway will be referred to as 10; see Paras. 0058-0060); and
a plurality of transport vehicles (movers 11; Para. 0058, 0063), each vehicle having:
at least one pair of guide rollers coupled to the motor guideway (10; see “Annotated Views of Figures 1 and 3” above);
a carrier section (carrier/support platform sections of 30 of each mover 11) having a pair of opposing end portions (shown below) a first pair of end portions and a second pair of end portions (See “Further Annotated View of Figure 1” below; Note the 112(b) rejection);
and
a holding block (shoulder 31 of 11) extending vertically away from the guideway (10; as shown).
PNG
media_image4.png
192
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further Annotated View of Figure 1
However, Bellante does not readily disclose the holding block extending across a width of the carrier section and positioned between the pair of opposing end portions (Note the 112(b) rejections).
Further attention can be brought to the teachings of Hurni, teaches another shuttle assembly (20b; Figures 2-4) comprising a similar linear synchronous motor guideway (linear motor system 44a; Figure 1; outlined as “44b” in description for emb. Of Figures 2-4; Para. 0037) and shuttles (conveyor elements 22b and support element 46b) wherein the shuttles (22, 46b) comprise carrier sections (holders 26b, 30b) each comprising a first pair of end portions and a second pair of end portions (combs/support surfaces 82b/84b) and a holding block (of 26b, 30b shown in Figure 2) extending across a width of the carrier section and positioned parallel between the first pair of end portions (see Figures 2-4; see the “Annotated View of Figure 2” below as an example; note the “end section” can be viewed as the end surfaces of the combs, or alternatively, each end portion of each comb, i.e. each comb/finger comprises a pair of end sections).
PNG
media_image5.png
162
265
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 2
As shown, Bellante discloses a holding block (31) extending across the widths of the individual end sections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the shuttle/carrier section of Bellante to include several pairs of end sections and a holding block that extends across all the width of the carrier section and between the end portions as taught by Hurni. By modifying the shuttles of Bellante in this manner, the containers cartons placed thereon will be better supported and further supported in a lateral/conveying direction.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellante (US PGPUB 2016/0207658).
Regarding Claims 25 and 26, assuming arguendo that the movers/vehicles (11a,11b) of Bellante cannot be reasonably assumed as having a first and second pair of guide rollers as claimed, in which the Examiner does not concede to, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized pairs of rollers on both longitudinal sides of the guideway, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Further it is noted that such a duplication of rollers would allow for more stable and balanced conveying and support of the loads. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter/Examiner’s Note
Claims 1, 3-13, and 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Note the following proposed amendment to Claim 1 would clearly overcome the 112(b) rejections outlined above:
1. (Proposed) An adaptive container packaging assembly, comprising:
a container forming assembly;
a container shuttle assembly positioned adjacent to the container forming assembly and having:
a linear synchronous motor guideway;
a plurality of shuttles moveable about the guideway each shuttle of the plurality of shuttles includes:
an upper body having a pair of first guide rollers and a pair of second guide rollers; and
a carrier assembly secured to an upper planar surface of the upper body, the carrier assembly includes:
a pair of first carrier sections positioned parallel to each other,
[[the]] a second carrier section having a first extension member and a second extension member positioned between the pair of first carrier sections and extending parallel thereto, wherein the first extension member and the second extension member extend in opposite directions from a center thereof;
wherein each first carrier section of the pair of first carrier sections includes a pair of leading extension members and a trailing extension member extending outward from a center thereof;
a holding block extending across a width of the pair of first carrier sections and the second carrier section, wherein the holding block extends vertically above the pair of first carrier sections and the second carrier section,
; and
a product transport assembly positioned adjacent the container shuttle assembly and having a robot arm to position product in a plurality of varying sized containers.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1 and 22, Bellante, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including each first carrier section (as shown above in Neubauer) comprises a trailing extension member (410R of Neubauer), the trailing member being a single finger like member extending outward from a center thereof (See above) and further discloses leading extension members (410F of Neubauer) being finger like members and extending outward from a center thereof and wherein the leading extension members form a receiving space for the trailing extension members (see Col 14, lines 59-64 of Neubauer).
However, Bellante, as modified by Neubauer, does not disclose each first carrier section of the pair of first carrier section include a pair of leading extension members, as claimed.
While it may have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have reconfigured the carrier sections of Bellante to encompass carrier sections as taught by Neubauer as such a modification would allow the ability of the shuttles to obtain a minimal transport spacing as taught by Neubauer (see Col 14, lines 59-64), the resultant combination would not have resulted in the claimed invention. Specifically, the resultant shuttle would not readily include each first carrier section of the pair of first carrier section including a pair of leading extension members and a trailing extension member. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the shuttle of Bellante such that each first carrier section includes the pair of leading extension members and trailing extension member as claimed without the use of improper hindsight drawn from Applicant’s disclosure.
Further, one can draw attention to the teachings of Hurni which includes another carrier assembly configuration (Figures 2-4) including a middle support element (46b) which comprises a similar construction of carrier assembly as claimed including first carrier sections and second carrier section therebetween and wherein the first carrier sections comprise leading extension members and a trailing extension extending from a center as shown below (see “Annotated View of Figure 3” below). However, this carrier assembly is of a middle support member (46b; Para. 0037) and does not comprise a holding member extending across the carrier sections as claimed. Note that the center extension piece shown below is viewed as part of the carrier sections and not as a separate holding block structure as claimed. If the center extension piece was to be viewed as a holding block (which it does not perform a holding function consistent with the Applicant’s specification), the “second carrier section” cannot be viewed as positioned between the first carrier sections.
PNG
media_image6.png
273
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 3
Therefore, it can be concluded that the subject matter of Claims 1 and 22 are viewed as allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 with respect to Claims 23- 26 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 25-26, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
608
635
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully notes that attention is pointed to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection as there does not appear to be support for the amended language which also renders the scope of the claim indefinite and further it is noted that without further details with respect to the manner in which way the structures are extending, Bellante can be reasonably interpreted as outlined in the rejection above.
Regarding Claims 23-24, Applicant argues that:
“Hurni does not disclose the holding block extending away from the motor guideway based on the placement of the conveyor element 22b. Thus, amended claim 24 is patently distinct and allowable over the combination.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as the holding blocks of the “holders” “26b, 30b” clearly extend in a vertical direction away from a guideway as claimed which is clearly depicted in Figure 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 4/22/2025
Prosecution Insights