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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-26 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
That the reply filed on 1/14/26 is not fully responsive to the prior Action because:
The scope of the rejected pending claims clearly directed to “A curvilinear track section of a linear motor (see line 1 the originally examined claims 1-13).
Newly added claims 16-26 directed to an invention other than the invention as originally elected and rejected (see preamble of new claims 16-26 which directed to “a linear motor conveyor system”) and clearly the newly added subject matter is/are not recited in the originally rejected claims 1-3, 11-13, respectively. Furthermore, the Office does not allow /permit shift of elected subject matter after the 1st Action (see MEPE§819 for further details).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In formulated the rejection on the merits only claims 1-3, 11-13 directed to the originally elected of the “Curvature Track Section” is being considered at this point of time. The newly added claims 16-28 are being withdrawn from consideration for reasons provided above. Applicant(s) refers to (see MEPE§819 for further details).
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-3, 11-13 directed to the originally elected of the “Curvature Track Section” is being considered at this point of time. The newly added claims 16-28 directed to an invention other than the originally invention (examined claims 1-13) is/are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected invention (a linear motor system) for reasons provided above. Applicant(s) refers to (see MEPE§819 for further details).
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 “the first guide rail having a shaped profile, at least one motor units, and wherein the first guide rail supports the moving element along both a vertical axis and a direction of driving of the moving element along the curvilinear track section by interacting with a first set of bearings of the moving element that have an edge profile that corresponds to the shaped profile of the first guide rail ( claim 1, about lines 5-11)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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear as to exactly what applicant(s) referring to as “a shaped profile” (claim 1, line 4). Please be more specific.
whether or not “a moving element “(claim 1, line 2) directed to the “curvilinear track section” or the linear motor system? note that at best Figs. 10-11 directed to the originally claimed “the curve track section” includes “a moving element” and this feature is structure element of the claimed track section and should be included under the body of claim 1, respectively. It is suggested that Applicant(s) should relies on Figs. 10-11 as the intention for the elected invention instead of the other combination invention of a linear motor conveyor system (entity) which is/are not part of the originally elected (dated 5/26/25). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 11-13 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.
The recites of “at least one motor unit for driving the curvature track section” (claim 1, lines 6-7) is not known if the at least one motor unit is a part of the claimed tract section, since no mechanical or electrical connection existed between them?
Further whether the moving element and it structure elements thereto (see claim 1, line 8-11) is a part of the curvature track section or not? since the scope of the claims directed to the curvature track section, and the moving element as indicated in line 2 of the preamble is directed to the linear motor system which made scope of the claims unclear.
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) 1-3, 11-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by van de Loecht (20130026011).
van de Loecht discloses the claimed a curvilinear track section3 of a linear motor system, the linear motor system including a moving element to move along the curvilinear track section, the curvilinear track section comprising:
first guide rai 11, the first guide rail having a shaped profile to support the moving element 2 (see discussion in ¶ [0022]); and
at least one motor unit 4/5/6 for driving a moving element the curvature track section (see Fig. 1).
wherein the first guide rail 11 supports the moving element 2 along both a vertical axis and a direction of driving of the moving element along the curvilinear track section by interacting with a first set of bearings 8 of the moving element that have an edge profile that corresponds to the shaped profile of the first guide rail 11 (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with ¶ [0022]).
As applied to claims 2-3, refers to Fig. 5 for the teaching of structure features (curves and straight track portions see Fig. 5 below).
Claim 3 does not further limit the base claim 2 since no further structure elements existed in claim 3, therefore, not inventive when departing from the van de Loecht reference without exercising any inventive skills.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
510
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) 11-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Loecht in view of Lopatinsky et al (20080011184).
The van de Loecht as advanced above is in silent regarding,
Claim 11 regarding, wherein the curvilinear track section comprises a plurality of sensors, wherein the sensors are oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion. The Lopatinsky et al teaches the above element features (see discussion in ¶ [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Lopatinsky ‘s teaching as mention above onto invention of the van de Loecht for various known benefit that including ensure the moving element following the right path facilitate operation would result.
Claims 12-13 does not further limit the base claim since only mode of operation existed in claim 12-13 no further element features existed therefrom and therefore, not inventive when departing from the combination teaching of van de Loecht and Lopatinsky, without exercising any inventive skills.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejected pending claim(s) 1-3, 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground rejection.
The amendment does not overcome the 112 as a=well as claim objection to (see new formulated 112 rejections, and claim objection to above).
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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
4/27/26
Prosecution Insights