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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terzini US 2011/0138743 (hereinafter Terzini) in view of MACVITTIE et al. US 2015/0291344 (hereinafter MACVITTIE).
Regarding claim 1, Terzini teaches: a container queue apparatus comprising:
at least two queue cylinders positioned in a vertical orientation, each of the queue cylinders configured to enable containers to pass through (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033] - - the tubing 103A and 103B are queue cylinders);
a switch tube connected to an end of the drive shaft, the switch tube configured to rotate about the drive shaft to align with top ends of the at least two queue cylinders and configured to enable containers to pass through to one of the queue cylinders to which the switch tube is aligned (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033] - - the gate 145 is a switch tube which allows containers to pass through to outgoing tubes 103C, 103D, 103E);
at least one stop actuator (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 146 is a stop actuator); and
a hold actuator positioned above the stop actuator and configured to retain at least a second container from a bottom of the at least two queue cylinders when in a closed position (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 145 is a hold actuator).
But Terzini does not explicitly teach:
a drive shaft;
However, MACVITTIE teaches:
a drive shaft ([0022] - - central shaft 214);
Terzini and MACVITTIE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to item distribution system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above apparatus, as taught by Terzini, and incorporating a shaft, as taught by MACVITTIE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve controlling item dispensing, as suggested by MACVITTIE ([0001]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MACVITTIE further teaches: the drive shaft is provided in a vertical orientation (Fig. 4 - - central shaft 214 is in vertical orientation ).
Terzini and MACVITTIE are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: the switch tube is helical (Fig. 11A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: the switch tube receives the containers through an input end (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MACVITTIE further teaches: the switch tube can be rotated from a first position to at least a second position by the drive shaft (Fig. 4 - - central shaft 214 rotates).
Terzini and MACVITTIE are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: a platform to which the at least two queue cylinders, the switch tube, the stop actuator, and the hold actuator are mounted (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MACVITTIE further teaches: a motor configured to operate the drive shaft ([0022] - - DC motor).
Terzini and MACVITTIE are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: a hold actuator for each of the at least two queue cylinders (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 145 is a hold actuator).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: a sensor configured to determine when one of the at least two queue cylinders are full ([0035] - - sensors positioned at inputs to each stage).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: the sensor is an optical sensor ([0035] - - sensors scan label, thus sensors are optical sensor).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: a lid mounted to a bottom end of the switch tube configured to cover the top ends of the at least two queue cylinders not aligned with the switch tube (Fig. 8D, [0032] - - door 147 is a lid).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: for each of the at least two queue cylinders, the at least one stop actuator is positioned adjacent to a bottom end of the respective queue cylinder and configured to release a container located at the bottom of the at least two queue cylinders when in an open position (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 146 is a stop actuator, the gate allows bottle passes through it when it remains open).
Regarding claim 14, Terzini teaches: a method for aggregating and sorting containers in a container queue apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
receiving at least one container in a switch tube configured to align with top ends of at least two queue cylinders and configured to enable containers to pass through to one of the at least two queue cylinders to which the switch tube is aligned (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033] - - the tubing 103A and 103B are queue cylinders; the gate 145 is a switch tube which allows containers to pass through to outgoing tubes 103C, 103D, 103E) ; and
depositing at least one container within at least one queue cylinder positioned in a vertical orientation, the at least one queue cylinder configured to enable containers to pass through (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033] - - the tubing 103A and 103B are queue cylinders; the gate 145 is a switch tube which allows containers to pass through to outgoing tubes 103C, 103D, 103E).
But Terzini does not explicitly teach:
a switch tube configured to rotate about the drive shaft to align with top ends of cylinders
However, MACVITTIE teaches:
a switch tube configured to rotate about the drive shaft to align with top ends of cylinders ([0022] - - central shaft 214 rotates; [0029] - - rotate carousel to align slots with orifice);
Terzini and MACVITTIE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to item distribution system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Terzini, and incorporating a shaft, as taught by MACVITTIE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve controlling item dispensing, as suggested by MACVITTIE ([0001]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: holding the at least one container within the at least one queue cylinder when a hold actuator is in a closed position (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 145 is a hold actuator that can stop a bottle).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MACVITTIE further teaches: the drive shaft is provided in a vertical orientation (Fig. 4 - - central shaft 214 is in vertical orientation ).
Terzini and MACVITTIE are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
MACVITTIE further teaches: the switch tube can be rotated from a first position to at least a second position by the drive shaft ([0022] - - central shaft 214 rotates; [0029] - - rotate carousel to align slots with orifice).
Terzini and MACVITTIE are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: a sensor configured to determine when one of the at least two queue cylinders are full ([0035] - - sensors positioned at inputs to each stage).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Terzini and MACVITTIE teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Terzini further teaches: the container queue apparatus further includes at least one stop actuator is positioned adjacent to a bottom end of the respective queue cylinder and configured to release a container located at the bottom end of the at least two queue cylinders when in an open position (Fig. 8A, Fig. 9, [0033], [0035] - - the gate 146 is a stop actuator).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights