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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection to claim 5 under 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims point to a method claim, but do not present itself with language of a method claim (as claim 6). Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lamb U.S. Patent No. 11,097,903.
Claim 1, Rutherford teaches an apparatus Fig. 1 for lowering a stream of boards 14 inline with a conveyor 10 or similar equipment comprising a first ramp 20 for receiving a singulated and oriented (S&O) board having an entrance, a slide and a tipping radius, a second ramp 18 adjacent the first ramp 18 and adapted to receive the S&O board from the first ramp 18 via 10 in an opposite direction having a containment radius, a linear slide and a tipping radius, and a third ramp 18 adjacent to the second ramp 18 via 10 and adapted to receive the S&O board from the second ramp 40 in an opposite direction having a containment radius, a linear slide and a direction change radius, wherein the S&O board exits the third ramp 18 to a further operation via 10 on the S&O board C2 L60-70 Fig. 1.
Claim 2, Rutherford teaches the second ramp 18 includes a top shield 10 and the third ramp 18 includes a bottom shield 18 Fig. 1.
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) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford U.S. Patent No. 2,799,384 in view of Lamb U.S. Patent No. 11,097,903.
Claim 3, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches the stream of boards 14 are boards for assembling a pallet C1 L10-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the conveyor configuration disclosed in Rutherford with the use of the board system taught in Lamb with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 4, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches the third ramp 58 exits to a conveyor 60 moving the boards 36 to a board stacking machine C4 L64-67; C5 L1-3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the conveyor configuration disclosed in Rutherford with the use of the board system taught in Lamb with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 5, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches an inline conveyor 34 is downstream from a board unscrambling machine 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the conveyor configuration disclosed in Rutherford with the use of the board system taught in Lamb with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb U.S. Patent No. 11,097,903 in view of Rutherford U.S. Patent No. 2,799,384.
Claim 4, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches the third ramp 58 exits to a conveyor 60 moving the boards 36 to a board stacking machine C4 L64-67; C5 L1-3.
Claim 6, Lamb teaches a method for lowering a stream of boards 14 comprising the steps of a. providing a board feeding apparatus 40 which singulates and orients (S&O) a plurality of boards via 30; and d. moving the S&O boards 14 on the second conveyor 50 to a board handling machine 80 C8 L20-50 Figs. 3-4but does not teach as Lamb teaches b. moving the S&O boards 14 on a first conveyor 10 to an apparatus 18 for lowering the S&O boards 14; c. lowering the S&O boards 14 on the board lowering apparatus 18 wherein the board lowering apparatus 18 comprises a first ramp 18 for receiving the S&O boards 14 having an entrance, a slide and a tipping radius, a second ramp 18 adjacent the first ramp 18 and adapted to receive the S&O boards 14 from the first ramp 18 via in an opposite direction having a containment radius, a linear slide and a tipping radius, and a third ramp18 adjacent to the second ramp 18 and adapted to receive the S&O boards 14 from the second ramp 18 in an opposite direction having a containment radius, a linear slide and a direction change radius, wherein the S&O boards 14 exit the third ramp 18 to a second conveyor 10 C2 L60-70. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the boarding transferring apparatus disclosed in Lamb with the conveyor configuration taught in Rutherford with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 7, Rutherford teaches the second ramp 18 includes a top shield 10 and the third ramp 18 includes a bottom shield 18 Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the boarding transferring apparatus disclosed in Lamb with the conveyor configuration taught in Rutherford with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 8, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches the stream of boards 14 are boards for assembling a pallet C1 L10-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the boarding transferring apparatus disclosed in Lamb with the conveyor configuration taught in Rutherford with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 9, Rutherford does not teach as Lamb teaches an inline conveyor 34 is downstream from a board unscrambling machine 30. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the boarding transferring apparatus disclosed in Lamb with the conveyor configuration taught in Rutherford with a reasonable expectation of success because
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights