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 . 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In figures 5, 7 and 8, the reference characters “233” and “242” both appear.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 2 the word member is misspelled “membre”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 6-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinhauer (US 2019/0144240 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0300693 A1) (hereinafter “Lee ‘693”).
Referring to Claim 1: Steinhauer teaches a tower lift comprising:
a rail module (110) extending in a vertical direction;
a carriage module (200) provided to be movable along the rail module
a brake device (14) integrated with the carriage module and configured to move along the rail module (Fig. 4),
wherein the brake device comprises:
a base body structure (22) having a relative position fixed with respect to the carriage module, and providing an inclined surface (24) (Para. [0035]); and
a brake structure (16, 18) configured to move along the inclined surface of the base body structure to stop a drop of the carriage module by selectively coming in contact with the rail module (Para. [0035]),
the rail module (110) is between the base body structure (22) and the brake structure (16, 18) so that the brake structure is in contact with both side walls of the rail module (Fig. 2), and
the brake structure is further configured to stop the drop of the carriage module when power for driving the tower lift is cut off (Para. [0014] and [0024]).
As noted by strikethrough above, Steinhauer does not specifically teach that the carriage moves along the rail by magnetic levitation. However, Lee ‘693 teaches a tower lift comprising: a rail module (140) extending in a vertical direction (Fig. 1); and a carriage module (160) provided to be movable along the rail module by magnetic levitation (Para. [0064]) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Steinhauer to use its braking device on a semiconductor tower lift system with carriages moveable by magnetic levitation, as taught by Lee ‘693, in order to provide sufficient emergency braking to magnetically levitated carriages with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, further comprising an elastic member (40) disposed on the brake structure and configured to apply an elastic force in an upward direction to the brake structure (Para. [0039]).
Referring to Claim 6: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein the brake device further comprises a driving controller (600) configured to control driving of the brake structure according to whether the power is supplied or cut off (Para. [0059]).
Referring to Claim 7: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein the driving controller further comprises an electromagnet (38) configured to generate a magnetic force when the power is supplied, to hold the first brake member (16) and the second brake member (18) so that the brake structure is separated from the rail module (Para. [0038]) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 8: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein, when the power is cut off, the electromagnet (38) does not generate the magnetic force (Para. [0024]), and thus, the brake structure moves upward along the inclined surface of the base body (Para. [0038]) (Fig. 2).
Referring to Claim 9: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein, when the power is supplied, the brake structure is separated by a first distance from the rail module,
Steinhauer teaches the claimed invention except for the range of 5mm to 10mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the brake structure from the rail module by a first distance of 5mm to 10mm, to optimize brake performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Referring to Claim 10: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein the base body structure (22) further comprises a roller bearing (26) in contact with one surface of the brake structure (16) and configured to be rotatable, and the brake structure is moved by the roller bearing which rotates (Figs. 1 and 2) (Para. [0035], last sentence).
Referring to Claim 11: Steinhauer teaches a tower lift comprising:
a rail module (110) extending in a vertical direction;
a carriage module (200) provided to be movable along the rail module
a brake device (14) integrated with the carriage module and configured to move along the rail module (Fig. 4),
wherein the brake device comprises:
a base body structure (22) having a relative position fixed with respect to the carriage module, and providing an inclined surface (24) (Para. [0035]); and
a brake structure (16, 18) configured to move along the inclined surface of the base body structure to stop a drop of the carriage module by selectively coming in contact with the rail module (Para. [0035]) when power for driving the tower is cut off (Para. [0014] and [0024]),
a driving controller (600) configured to control driving of the brake structure (Para. [0059]) according to whether the power is supplied or cut off (Para. [0014] and [0024]); and
a returner (40) configured to return the brake structure to an original position after the brake structure stops the drop of the carriage module by selectively coming in contact with the rail module (Para. [0021]) (claim 21), and
the rail module (110) is between the base body structure (22) and the brake structure (16, 18) so that the brake structure is in contact with both side walls of the rail module (Fig. 2).
As noted by strikethrough above, Steinhauer does not specifically teach that the carriage moves along the rail by magnetic levitation. However, Lee ‘693 teaches a tower lift comprising: a rail module (140) extending in a vertical direction (Fig. 1); and a carriage module (160) provided to be movable along the rail module by magnetic levitation (Para. [0064]) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Steinhauer to use its braking device on a semiconductor tower lift system with carriages moveable by magnetic levitation, as taught by Lee ‘693, in order to provide sufficient emergency braking to magnetically levitated carriages with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 12: Steinhauer further teaches the tower lift, wherein the driving controller comprises:
an electromagnet (36) configured to generate a magnetic force when the power is applied to the electromagnet (Para. [0038]); and
a holding member (38) held by the electromagnet when the electromagnet generates the magnetic force (Para. [0038]).
Referring to Claim 18: Steinhauer teaches a tower lift comprising:
a rail module (110) extending in a vertical direction;
a carriage module (200) provided to be movable along the rail module
a brake device (14) integrated with the carriage module and configured to move along the rail module (Fig. 4),
wherein the brake device comprises:
a base body structure (22) having a relative position fixed with respect to the carriage module, and providing an inclined surface (24) (Para. [0035]); and
a brake structure (16, 18) configured to move along the inclined surface of the base body structure to stop a drop of the carriage module by selectively coming in contact with the rail module (Para. [0035]),
an elastic member (40) disposed on the brake structure and configured to apply an elastic force in an upward direction to the brake structure (Para. [0039]); and
a driving controller (600) configured to make the brake structure selectively come in contact with the rail module by holding the brake device only when power for driving the tower lift is supplied(Para. [0059]),
the rail module (110) is between the base body structure (22) and the brake structure (16, 18) so that the brake structure is in contact with both side walls of the rail module (Fig. 2), and
the brake structure is further configured to stop the drop of the carriage module when power for driving the tower lift is cut off (Para. [0014] and [0024]).
As noted by strikethrough above, Steinhauer does not specifically teach that the carriage moves along the rail by magnetic levitation. However, Lee ‘693 teaches a tower lift comprising: a rail module (140) extending in a vertical direction (Fig. 1); and a carriage module (160) provided to be movable along the rail module by magnetic levitation (Para. [0064]) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Steinhauer to use its braking device on a semiconductor tower lift system with carriages moveable by magnetic levitation, as taught by Lee ‘693, in order to provide sufficient emergency braking to magnetically levitated carriages with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 13-17, 19 and 20 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 3 and depending claims 4 and 5, Steinhauer fails to teach that “the brake structure comprises: a first brake member comprising a first brake pad facing one side of the rail module; a second brake member comprising a second brake pad facing an opposite side of the one side of the rail module; and a connection member connecting the first brake member to the second brake member so that the first brake member and the second brake member are integrally driven,” as recited in claim 3. While it is known in the art to use first and second brake members, Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Steinhauer with a second brake member and further modify with a connection member so that the two brakes are integrally driven. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 13, Steinhauer fails to teach that “the returner comprises: a motor; and a contact portion connected to the motor and configured to attach the holding member to the electromagnet by using a rotational force.” Rather, Steinhauer’s spring 40 is being interpreted as the returner. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Steinhauer in this manner. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 14 and depending claims 15-17, fails to teach “an elastic member disposed on the brake structure and configured to apply an elastic force in an upward direction to the brake structure,” as recited in claim 14. Steinhauer’s spring 40 is being interpreted as the “returner” in the rejection of base claim 11, and spring 40 cannot reasonably also be interpreted as the “elastic member” of claim 14. Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Steinhauer in this manner. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 19 and depending claim 20, Steinhauer fails to teach that “the brake structure comprises: a first brake member comprising a first brake pad facing one side of the rail module; a second brake member comprising a second brake pad facing an opposite side of the one side of the rail module; and a connection member connecting the first brake member to the second brake member so that the first brake member and the second brake member are integrally driven,” as recited in claim 19. While it is known in the art to use first and second brake members (e.g., Billard et al. (US 11,078,045) (Fig. 6)), Examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Steinhauer with a second brake member and further modify with a connection member so that the two brakes are integrally driven. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A
Prosecution Insights