DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 3-5 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rear". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not understood as to what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hugues Drewitz (US 6,202,827 B1 – hereinafter Drewitz).
Re Claim 1:
Drewitz discloses a container supply device which supplies containers to a supply position from a container storage where the containers are stored, the container supply device comprising: a transfer mechanism (at 12) which transfers the containers (14) to a feed position (near 32) opposing a feed port (at 20) of the containers (14) of the container storage; and a feed mechanism (34) which sequentially feeds the containers (14) having been transferred to the feed position (near 32) by the transfer mechanism (at 12) toward the supply position (near 21) through the feed port (at 20), wherein the transfer mechanism (at 12) includes: one or more container mounting lane unit (12) in which the containers (14) are arranged so as to be movable in a column direction (see Fig. 1, the entry containers are movable in directions from 12 to 14 in order to line up with a particular row), the container mounting lane unit (12) being arranged so as to be lined up in a row direction intersecting the column direction (see Fig. 1 – row direction toward 40, column direction from 12 to 14); and a lane transfer unit (rollers/motors which cause 12 to rotate – see Fig. 2 near 18) which moves the container mounting lane unit (12) in the row direction (toward 40) and transfers the containers (14) on a side of the feed port (at 20) mounted on the container mounting lane unit (12, 24) to the feed position (near 32) (see Fig. 2, see Figs. 1-6).
Re Claim 6:Drewitz discloses wherein the containers (14) are arranged by being lined up so as to be movable in a column direction in the container mounting lane unit (12) (see Figs. 1-6).
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drewitz in view of Toshiki Kawabe (CN 112,867,925 A – hereinafter Kawabe) and Sabo et al. (US 4,600,120 – hereinafter Sabo).
Re Claims 2-4:
Drewitz discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the transfer mechanism includes a lane mounting tray unit which is moved in the row direction by the lane transfer unit, and the container mounting lane unit is mounted on the lane mounting tray unit with a side of the feed port inclined downward.
Kawabe teaches wherein a transfer mechanism includes a lane mounting tray unit (6) which is moved in a row direction by a lane transfer unit (14) (see Fig. 1a), and a container mounting lane unit (21) is mounted on the lane mounting tray unit (6) with a side of the feed port (see Fig. 1a). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Drewitz with that of Kawabe to allow for a self-contained movable tray unit that would allow for increase control of product flow.
Sabo teaches a side of a feed port inclined downward (see Fig. 2 – entire device is inclined downward). Re Claim 3: Sabo teaches wherein a feed mechanism (23) includes a stopper unit (27) which protrudes in a row direction in a top view, and the stopper unit (27) is provided so as to freely penetrate between a container (22) to be a side of a feed port and a container (22) adjacent to a rear of the container (22) to be a side of the feed port (see Fig. 2). Re Claim 4: Sabo teaches wherein the stopper unit (27) has a curved shape in which a front end part faces the side of the feed port with respect to the row direction in a top view (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Drewitz with that of Kawabe and Sabo allow for gravity to assist in transporting of product so as to avoid improper alignment of moving products. Examiner further notes the combination would be capable of providing, due to a movement of the container mounting lane unit in the row direction by the lane transfer unit, by way of the corresponding parts functioning as the combination suggests.
Further Re Claim 5:
Drewitz discloses wherein the feed mechanism (34) includes an abutting member (32) which is movable in the column direction at a position behind a front end position in the row direction of the stopper unit (at 34), and the abutting member (32) abuts the container (14) and propels the container (14) to the feed port (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drewitz in view of Subramanian et al. (US 11,613,395 B2 – hereinafter Subramanian).
Re Claim 7:Drewitz discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach a container detecting unit which detects the containers arranged in the container mounting lane unit; and a controller which controls a transport actuator of the lane transfer unit in accordance with a detection signal of the container detecting unit.
Subramanian teaches a container detecting unit (baggage sensor) which detects the containers (baggage items); and a controller (signaling) which controls a transport actuator (conveying belt actuator motor) of the lane transfer unit (conveyor system) in accordance with a detection signal of the container detecting unit (baggage sensor) (see co1. 11 lines 30-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Drewitz with that of Subramanian to allow for automatic control of a conveying system for translating product. Examiner notes the combination would allow for arranged in a container mounting lane unit, by way of the corresponding parts of Drewitz functioning in a predictable manner as obvious within the combination as cited, without any additional inventive skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651