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 .
DETAILED 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Murata et al. (US 20160365266 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murata discloses:
A placement base (5) on which a storage container (20) provided with a plurality of positioning grooves (24) on a bottom surface of the storage container is to be placed (Fig. 2), the placement base comprising:
a plurality of positioning pins (12) protruding upward from a top surface of the placement base, on which top surface the storage container is to be placed (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of buffer bodies (8 & 9 & 30 & 31 & 32 & 33 & 36 & 37 & 38 & 39 & 40) protruding upward from the top surface of the placement base (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2),
each of the plurality of positioning pins being provided on the top surface of the placement base in a manner so as to be engaged with a corresponding one of the plurality of positioning grooves (Fig. 2) [0028 & 0029 & 0032 & 0033 & 0035],
at least one of the plurality of buffer bodies being provided for each of the plurality of positioning pins (Fig. 2),
the plurality of the buffer bodies having upper ends (32) that are able to be pressed downward and that are configured to be biased upward when the upper ends are pressed down [0008 & 0010 & 0011 & 0012 & 0013 & 0014 & 0015 & 0016 & 0017 & 0031 & 0032 & 0033 & 0035],
the plurality of buffer bodies, while the upper ends are not being pressed downward, being located at a height at which the plurality of buffer bodies come into contact, before the plurality of positioning pins, with the bottom surface of the storage container to be placed [0029 & 0032 & 0033 & 0035].
Regarding Claim 2, Murata discloses:
the plurality of buffer bodies each have an elastic part (62) made of an elastic material [0017 & 0044]; and
the plurality of buffer bodies are provided on the top surface of the placement base so as to correspond to positions in the bottom surface of the storage container, other than positions of the plurality of positioning grooves (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3) [0027 & 0028 & 0029 & 0030 & 0032 & 0033].
Regarding Claim 4, Murata discloses:
the plurality of buffer bodies each have a columnar shape with a diameter larger than that of each of the plurality of positioning pins (Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Murata discloses:
on the top surface of the placement base, the plurality of positioning pins are provided at respective vertices of a first imaginary triangle (Fig. 1); and
on the top surface of the placement base, the plurality of buffer bodies are provided at respective vertices of a second imaginary triangle that encompasses the first imaginary triangle and that is made by enlarging the first imaginary triangle (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Murata discloses:
a plate (4) having a top surface which is a part of the top surface of the placement base (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2),
the plurality of positioning pins being fixed to the plate (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2),
the plurality of buffer bodies being fixed to portions of the placement base, other than where the plate is (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Murata discloses:
the plurality of buffer bodies each include a movable part that is biased upward by a spring (38) (Fig. 3) [0030 & 0031 & 0033 & 0039]; and
the plurality of buffer bodies are provided on the top surface of the placement base so as to each correspond to a position which is inside a corresponding one of the plurality of positioning grooves on the bottom surface of the storage container and which is at a center of the corresponding one of the plurality of positioning grooves in a width direction of the corresponding one of the plurality of positioning grooves (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Murata discloses:
a center part of each of the plurality of the positioning grooves in the width direction forms a flat part parallel to a main surface of the bottom surface of the storage container (Fig. 2) [0028 & 0029 & 0032 & 0033 & 0035 & 0037]; and
the plurality of buffer bodies each have a portion to come into contact with at least the bottom surface of the storage container, the portion having a diameter smaller than a width of each of the flat parts (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Murata discloses:
a plate (4) having a top surface which is a part of the top surface of the placement base (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2),
the plurality of positioning pins and the plurality of buffer bodies being fixed to the plate (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [0008 & 0010 & 0011 & 0012 & 0013 & 0014 & 0015 & 0016 & 0017 & 0031 & 0032 & 0033 & 0035].
Regarding Claim 10, Murata discloses:
the plurality of buffer bodies each include a length adjusting mechanism (36 & 39 & 40 & 41) that adjusts a length by which the plurality of buffer body protrudes upward from the top surface of the placement base [0030].
Regarding Claim 12, Murata discloses:
the plurality of buffer bodies each include a spring (57) and a movable part (54) that is biased upward by the spring [0042], and both of the spring and the movable part are provided above the plate (Fig. 5).
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 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 of this title, 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) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 20160365266 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Murata discloses:
the elastic part includes a tapered upper end part of a corresponding one of the plurality of buffer bodies (Fig. 3 & Fig. 6) [0017 & 0044]; and
the upper end part has a round shape such that an uppermost end of the upper end part is a center part of the corresponding one of the plurality of buffer bodies (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4).
Murata does not teach:
the upper end part is dome shaped
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastic part with a dome shaped upper end part in order to provide a guide surface for correcting misalignment, since it has been held that changing the shape of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding Claim 11, Murata does not teach:
a height of the plate is vertically adjustable, and a position of the plate is horizontally adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plate which is vertically adjustable and horizontally adjustable in order to accommodate alignment and engagement of the storage container with working implements such as front end devices, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(V)(D))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/04/16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “at least one of the plurality of buffer bodies being provided for each of the plurality of positioning pins”:
Applicant’s assertion that Murata fails to disclose at least one of the plurality of buffer bodies being provided for each of the plurality of positioning pins is not persuasive as the applicant has not provided any arguments to support the assertion. Additionally, Fig. 2 of Murata shows 4 buffer bodies adjacent to 3 positioning pins which reads on the limitation as there is no proximity or exact number of buffer bodies per positioning pin.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 3, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the elastic part includes a domed shape upper end part of a corresponding one of the plurality of buffer bodies; and the upper end part has a shape such that an uppermost end of the upper end part is a center part of the corresponding one of the plurality of buffer bodies”:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastic part with a dome shaped upper end part in order to provide a guide surface for correcting misalignment, since it has been held that changing the shape of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B))
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 5, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the plurality of positioning pins are provided at respective vertices of a first imaginary triangle; and on the top surface of the placement base, the plurality of buffer bodies are provided at respective vertices of a second imaginary triangle that encompasses the first imaginary triangle and that is made by enlarging the first imaginary triangle”:
Applicants assertion that the second imaginary triangle of Murata cannot be made by enlarging the first triangle of Murata is not persuasive as the claim limitations provide no positional relationship or size relationship between the triangles other than the second is larger than the first and one is encapsulated by the other, both of which are true of the triangles of Murata.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 6, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the plurality of buffer bodies being fixed to portions of the placement base, other than where the plate is”:
Applicant’s assertion that the buffer bodies of Murata are affixed to the same horizontal surface is not persuasive as the buffer bodies are affixed to the base in a retractable manner through connection to a pedestal and each passes through a hole in the plate as illustrated by Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 of Murata and outlined in Paragraph 0030 and Paragraph 0042 of Murata.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights