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 .
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 24-27 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.
In regard to claims 24-27, it should be noted that the frequency and peak acceleration of the oscillatory motion of the conveyor belt is dependent in part on the speed of the conveyor belt and not only on the structure of the conveyor system. Such a limitation may not be claimed because a person operating a similar conveyor apparatus could be guilty of infringing such an apparatus claim depending on a method of using apparatus rather than on the structure of the apparatus as is usually required for infringement of an apparatus claim. As such, a person could be guilty of infringing on the claim based not on the structure of the claimed apparatus, but on a method of operating the apparatus.
While this rejection was addressed with regard to original claims 11-12 by amending them to include “configured for language”, claims 24-27 do not include such language and as such the rejection above is made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Turatti (US 2001/0052192).
In regard to claim 1, Turatti shows a roller conveyor system with a continuous carry belt 2/3 to carry a bulk material. A plurality of idler rollers including end rollers and intermediate rollers 7 support the continuous carry belt. The plurality of idler rollers are mounted to a frame (see figures 1-4). Two or more idler rollers 7 are configured to induce an oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material (see paragraph 0049). As can be seen in figure 5, the idler rollers define a travel path that may be viewed as undulating, corrugated or sinusoidal.
In regard to claim 2, a first idler roller 7 is offset or eccentric, in a longitudinal direction of the conveyor system, to a second idler roller formed either by an end roller or by another intermediate roller 7 in to induce the oscillatory motion.
In regard to claim 3, some of the plurality of idler rollers may be divided into idler roller sets to induce the oscillatory motion. Such a sets could include two intermediate rollers 7 and an adjacent end roller so that each idler roller set comprises a first idler roller offset or eccentric to a second idler roller and a third idler roller.
In regard to claim 10, the oscillatory motion is substantially transverse or orthogonal to the continuous carry belt.
In regard to claim 11, it should be noted that depending on the speed at which the belt is driven, oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material is capable of having a frequency which is between 2 and 10Hz, so that the system may be said to be configured for such a frequency of oscillatory motion.
In regard to claim 12, it should be noted that depending on the speed at which the belt is driven, a peak acceleration of the oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material is capable of being between 1 and 10 m/s2, so that the system may be said to be configured for such an acceleration of oscillatory motion.
In regard to claims 22, 14, and 19, in operation, the conveyor system is used to reduce moisture in a bulk load being transported by the conveyor system (see the reference to drying vegetables in the abstract). As described above, the conveyor system has a continuous carry belt 2/3 to carry the bulk material (the vegetables). The continuous carry belt is operatively connected to an oscillatory motion assembly to the continuous carry belt. The oscillatory motion assembly includes the above described end rollers and intermediate rollers 7 mounted to a first frame. As described above, a first idler roller is arranged offset or eccentric to a second idler to induce an oscillatory motion in the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material. Additionally as described above, and as can be seen in figure 5, the idler rollers define a travel path that may be viewed as undulating, corrugated or sinusoidal.
As described above, Turatti shows all the structure required by claims 1-, 10-12, 14, 19, and 22.
In response to this rejection, the applicant’s representative argues that Turatti fails to show idler rollers that “define an undulating, corrugated or sinusoidal travel path for the continuous carry belt”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In particular, the applicant’s representative argues that the “rotors/beaters do not function as idler rollers as they do not support the conveyor belt due to their intermittent contact with the lower monobelt 3. While it is true that the rolls 7 only have periodic or intermittent contact with the belt, this does not mean that they don’t function s idler rollers. There is no requirement that the rollers support the belt at all times. The claims only require that the idler roller are configured to induce an oscillatory motion of the belt that is transmitted to the bulk material and that the idler rollers define an undulating, corrugated, or sinusoidal travel path for the belt. The idler rollers 7 can do these things even if they only intermittently or periodically contact the belt. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP 2-286063.
In regard to claim 1, JP 2-286063 shows a roller conveyor system with a continuous carry belt 2 to carry a bulk material. A plurality of idler rollers 4/5 support the continuous carry belt. The plurality of idler rollers 4/5 are mounted to a frame. Two or more idler rollers /4/57 are configured to induce an oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material (see translation pages 2-4paragraph 0049). As can be seen in figure 3b, the idler rollers define a travel path, preferably undulating, corrugated or sinusoidal.
In regard to claim 2, a first idler roller 4/5 is offset or eccentric, in a longitudinal direction of the conveyor system, to a second idler roller formed either by an end roller 5 or by another intermediate roller 4 in to induce the oscillatory motion. The rollers 4 may also be offset vertically relative to the rollers 5, either when the carry belt 2 is inclined or when the rollers 4 move up and down.
In regard to claim 3, some of the plurality of idler rollers may be divided into idler roller sets to induce the oscillatory motion. Such a sets could include two intermediate rollers 4 and an adjacent end roller 5 so that each idler roller set comprises a first idler roller offset or eccentric to a second idler roller and a third idler roller.
In regard to claim 10, the oscillatory motion is substantially transverse or orthogonal to the continuous carry belt.
In regard to claim 11, it should be noted that depending on the speed at which the belt is driven, oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material is capable of having a frequency which is between 2 and 10Hz, so that the system may be said to be configured for such a frequency of oscillatory motion.
In regard to claim 12, it should be noted that depending on the speed at which the belt is driven, a peak acceleration of the oscillatory motion of the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material is capable of being between 1 and 10 m/s2, so that the system may be said to be configured for such an acceleration of oscillatory motion.
In regard to claims 22, 14, and 19, in operation, the conveyor system is used to reduce moisture in a bulk load being transported by the conveyor system (see the reference to drying powdery material in the abstract). As described above, the conveyor system has a continuous carry belt 2 to carry the bulk material (the powdery material). The continuous carry belt is operatively connected to an oscillatory motion assembly to the continuous carry belt. The oscillatory motion assembly includes the above described end rollers 5 and intermediate rollers 4 mounted to a first frame. As described above, a first idler roller is arranged offset or eccentric to a second idler to induce an oscillatory motion in the continuous carry belt that is transmitted to the bulk material.
As described above, JP 2-286063 shows all the structure required by claims 1-3, 10-12, 14, 19, and 22.
In regard to this rejection, the applicant’s representative points out that “Figure 3B only shows the idler roller 4 in action, isolated from the rest of the system” and that “figures 1 and 3a shows the system operation in context, where the conveyor belt travels along a substantially linear path with the rollers being aligned in the same plane”. While it is true that the rollers 4 are arranged in the same plane so that the belt is generally linear, this does not mean that the rollers do not define at least an undulating path, and also a corrugated or sinusoidal path when these terms are given a reasonably broad definition. It only means that the undulations are relatively small relative to the length of the belt. This is what is shown in figure 3b, the small undulations induced in the belt by the rollers 4 at each of the rollers 4. As there are not limitations that the idler rollers be arranged with their upper support surfaces arranged in different planes and as the rollers 4 of the Japanese document induce undulations in the belt, even if they are small, the Japanese document shows all the limitations required by the above listed claims and as such the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 20-21, 24-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2-286063 or Turatti.
In regard to the frequency and peak acceleration of the oscillatory motion of the above listed claims, it should be noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to try to operate the conveyor systems of the two references at a variety of speeds likely to result in the claimed frequencies and peak accelerations. As such, the particular claimed frequencies and peak accelerations are deemed to have been obvious design choices absent some disclosure in the applicant’s specification of some unusual advantage or result. In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As the applicant made no independent arguments with regard to this rejection, the rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 28 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.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In regard to the newly cited prior art, it should be noted that thee documents show idler rollers arranged in different planes that would induce oscillatory motion in the conveyor belt supported thereon. While the references were not used in a rejection at this time in the interest of compact prosecution of the present application, the applicant should be aware that they may read on some of the claims of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights