The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al (CN 215797263, previously cited).
Dong shows a lifting device 100 comprising:
a lifting mechanism 111 configured to move up and down a placement portion (supporting table) 112 on which a conveyed object is placed;
a distance sensor 130 configured to output a detection signal indicating a distance to a surface 310 to be detected of a moving object 300 in a state of being located above the surface to be detected (Fig.1);
a support member (baffle) 113 provided on the placement portion and configured to support the distance sensor;
a movement mechanism (the disclosure refers to an unillustrated “driving mechanism” that moves member 113 between the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 positions) configured to move, with respect to the placement portion, at least a part of the support member between a measurement position where the distance sensor is located above the surface to be detected (Fig. 1) and a retraction position where the distance sensor and the support member are deviated from above the moving object (Fig. 2); and
a lifting controller 114/120 (Fig. 3) configured to control the lifting mechanism such that the placement portion is aligned with the moving object at a position where the conveyed object is allowed to be transferred in a lateral direction based on the detection signal, wherein the support member includes “a base portion and a distal end portion” (as broadly recited; i.e., the portion of the support member where it is attached to the placement portion is a base portion and the portion where the distance sensor is attached thereto is a distal end portion), wherein the movement mechanism includes a linear motion mechanism configured to relatively and linearly move at least a part of the support member with respect to the placement portion (note the 2nd par. on page 8 of the attached English translation discloses that “In other embodiments, the baffle 113 is slidably connected with the support table 112”), [or a rotation mechanism configured to connect the base portion and the distal end portion such that the distal end portion is rotatable about the base portion], and wherein the distance sensor is attached to the distal end portion.
Re claim 2, the retraction position is a position where interference with “a closed position of a movable shutter” does not occur, as broadly recited (e.g., Fig. 2). It is noted that the claim does not require any particular part of the apparatus to actually have such a movable shutter with a closed position, but merely that the retracted position of the support member does not interfere with such a shutter.
Re claim 3, Dong discloses that the support member 113 is rotatably connected to the edge of the support surface 112 so as to move between the measurement (Fig. 1) and retracted (Fig. 2) positions. Although Dong does not explicitly describe what happens if the support member (or the distance sensor) interferes with the moving object, such a rotatable connection would inherently allow at least a part of the distance sensor and the support member to escape to a side of the moving object in the event such an interference occurred (at least to some extent). As such, the lifting device of Dong is considered to inherently comprise an evacuation mechanism configured to escape at least a part of the distance sensor and the support member to a side of the moving object when the distance sensor or the support member interferes with the moving object, wherein the evacuation mechanism includes a rotation mechanism configured to relatively rotate at least a part of the support member with respect to the placement portion, and further wherein such a rotation mechanism functions as both the movement mechanism and the evacuation mechanism.
Re claim 9, the support member is considered to inherently include a “flexible” arm having a “changeable” shape (at least to some extent), as broadly recited, noting that the claim does not set forth any limitation as to the degree of flexibility of the arm or the changeability of its shape.
Re claim 10, the support member is considered to inherently include an “extension portion vertically extending” (at least some extent), as broadly recited, in a state of being located at the measurement position, noting that the claim does not set forth any limitation as to the degree of vertical extension of the support member.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al.
Although Dong discloses a second distance sensor 140 (Fig. 3), Dong does not explicitly disclose a plurality of support members, with a distance sensor provided on each of the plurality of support members.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Dong by providing a plurality of support members, with a distance sensor provided on each of the plurality of support members, to provide more accurate detection, as this would simply be a mere duplication of parts, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art and to have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained. St. Regis Paper Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Dong fails to show the newly recited recitation “the movement mechanism includes a linear motion mechanism configured to relatively and linearly move at least a part of the support member with respect to the placement portion, or a rotation mechanism configured to connect the base portion and the distal end portion such that the distal end portion is rotatable about the base portion. This is not persuasive. As noted above, Dong discloses an alternate embodiment in which, instead of a rotation mechanism, the movement mechanism may include a linear motion mechanism configured to relatively and linearly move at least a part of the support member with respect to the placement portion. Meeting one or the other of the alternative limitations is all that is required to anticipate the claim.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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 Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
3/26/26