DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1, 11, and 20 and dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the curved portion of the conveyor system recited in claims 10 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelm (DE 19921165 C2).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wilhelm discloses a zone control system comprising: a roller comprising: a drive portion (9); and a driven portion (2) configured to be driven by the drive portion when the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; a spring (10) disposed between the drive portion and the driven portion, wherein the spring is configured to transition between an extended state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are separated by a gap and refrain from operably engaging, and a compressed state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; and an actuator (12) operably engaged with one or more of the roller and the spring, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the spring between the extended state and the compressed state.
Regarding independent claim 11, Wilhelm discloses a conveyor system comprising: a conveyor frame (1); one or more rollers disposed on or within the conveyor frame, wherein at least one of the rollers comprises: a drive portion (9); and a driven portion (2) configured to be driven by the drive portion when the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; a spring (10) disposed between the drive portion and the driven portion, wherein the spring is configured to transition between an extended state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are separated by a gap and refrain from operably engaging, and a compressed state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; and an actuator (12) operably engaged with one or more of the roller and the spring, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the spring between the extended state and the compressed state.
Regarding independent claim 20, Wilhelm discloses a method of using a zone control system, the method comprising: inflating, by an air supply inlet (19), an air bladder (18) coupled to an actuating bracket (12), such that the actuating bracket compresses a spring (10) separating a drive portion (9) of a roller from a driven portion (2) of the roller; engaging the drive portion and the driven portion such that the drive portion drives the driven portion of the roller (see description); and deflating, by the air supply inlet, the air bladder, such that the actuating bracket extends a spring separating the drive portion of the roller from the driven portion of the roller (see description).
Regarding the dependent claims 2-9, and 12-18, Wilhelm discloses a bladder (18) configured to transition between a filled state and an empty state, wherein the bladder is operably engaged with the actuator, wherein, when the bladder is in the filled state, the spring is compressed and the drive portion and driven portion are operably engaged, and, wherein, when the bladder is in the empty state, the spring is extended and the drive portion and the driven portion refrain from operably engaging. The bladder is an air bladder, and wherein the zone control system further comprises an air supply inlet (19) fluidly connected to the air bladder and configured to provide an air supply to the air bladder. Wilhelm further discloses a push knob (see Fig. 4 annotated below), wherein the push knob is operably engaged with the bladder and the actuator, and wherein the push knob is configured to transfer one or more actuating forces between the bladder and the actuator. Wilhelm further discloses a first friction plate (11) bonded to the drive portion and a second friction plate (see Fig. 4, annotated below) bonded to the driven portion, wherein the first and second friction plates are connected; one or more thrust washers (see Fig. 4 annotated below) operably engaged with the drive portion of the roller; and an axle (see Fig. 4, generally at 8), wherein the drive portion and the driven portion are aligned in parallel on or along the axle and configured to rotate on or along the axle.. The actuator comprises an actuating bracket (12). The zone control system is fixedly attached to a conveyor frame (1) of a conveyor system.
[AltContent: textbox (Thrust Washers)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Push Knob)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Friction Plate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
466
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1, 9, 10, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubanks et al. (US 2006/0096842) in view of Wilhelm (DE 19921165 C2). Eubanks discloses a conveyor system comprising: a conveyor frame (2) and one or more rollers (10) disposed on a curved portion (see Fig. 1) of the conveyor frame and fixedly attached to the conveyor frame. Eubanks discloses all the limitations of the claims but it does not disclose that the one or more rollers is/are part of a zone control system wherein at least one of the rollers comprises a drive portion; and a driven portion configured to be driven by the drive portion when the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; a spring disposed between the drive portion and the driven portion, wherein the spring is configured to transition between an extended state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are separated by a gap and refrain from operably engaging, and a compressed state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; and an actuator operably engaged with one or more of the roller and the spring, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the spring between the extended state and the compressed state. However, Wilhelm discloses a similar system in which one or more rollers is/are part of a zone control system wherein at least one of the rollers comprises a drive portion (9); and a driven portion (2) configured to be driven by the drive portion when the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; a spring (10) disposed between the drive portion and the driven portion, wherein the spring is configured to transition between an extended state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are separated by a gap and refrain from operably engaging, and a compressed state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; and an actuator (12) operably engaged with one or more of the roller and the spring, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the spring between the extended state and the compressed state for the purpose of accumulating objects on the conveyor system. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to modify Eubanks by having the one or more rollers is/are part of a zone control system wherein at least one of the rollers comprises a drive portion; and a driven portion configured to be driven by the drive portion when the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; a spring disposed between the drive portion and the driven portion, wherein the spring is configured to transition between an extended state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are separated by a gap and refrain from operably engaging, and a compressed state, such that the drive portion and the driven portion are operably engaged; and an actuator operably engaged with one or more of the roller and the spring, wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the spring between the extended state and the compressed state, as disclosed by Wilhelm, for the purpose of accumulating objects on the conveyor system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ehlert et al. (US 2003/0192775) discloses a conveyor having zone control. Covell (US 3,327,837) discloses a roller having an air bladder to control rotation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653