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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed6/9/2026. Claims 1 was amended. Claims 2 and 4-8 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3 and 9 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 6/9/2026 are moot in light of the newly cited Sun.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transfer device as set forth in claim 2” is spelled incorrectly, Examiner suggests it should be -- transfer device as set forth in claim 1 --. For remainder of the action the word will be reviewed as “transfer device as set forth in claim 1”.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aschauer et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170341862 - hereinafter Aschauer) in view of Ota et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220274777 - hereinafter Ota) in view of Sun et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220289502 - hereinafter Sun).
Re. claim 1, Aschauer teaches:
A transfer device, comprising: [Aschauer; Fig. 1].
a placement section on which a transfer target is to be placed; [Aschauer; see element 7 of Fig. 1].
a pair of support bodies which are to sandwich the transfer target from a right side and a left side; [Aschauer; see elements 3 and 4 of Fig. 1].
a control section which carries out control of respective operations of the pair of support bodies so that the pair of support bodies sandwich the transfer target and transfer the transfer target from a transfer origin to the placement section; and [Aschauer; see ¶58-¶59].
a sensing section which senses a posture of the transfer target while the control by the control section is carried out, [Aschauer; see 300, 400, 302 and 402 of abstract as it states “can be pivoted into at least one oblique intermediate position, that at least two mutually opposite edge detectors (300, 400, 302, 402) are arranged on the telescopic arms (3, 4) and are assigned to two mutually opposite drivers (30, 40, 32, 42)”].
in a case where the posture sensed by the sensing section is tilted with respect to a prescribed posture, the control section carrying out control so that the pair of support bodies transfer the transfer target in different operations so as to correct the posture of the transfer target. [Aschauer; see ¶58-¶59].
Aschauer doesn’t teach, Ota teaches:
the sensing section senses the posture based on a difference between loads respectively applied to the pair of support bodies, [Ota; ¶28 and ¶33-¶35].
the control section carries out control so that an operation speed of one of the pair of support bodies to which a relatively lighter load is applied becomes higher than an operation speed of the other support body to which a heavier load is applied. [Ota; ¶28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ota in the system of Aschauer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Aschauer doesn’t teach, Sun teaches:
the pair of support bodies are belts of belt conveyors, [Sun; ¶73-¶76]
the difference being a difference between loads on the belts detected based on measured values of electric currents flowing through motors for driving the belts, respectively; and [Sun; ¶50 and ¶163 shows weight sensor and determining difference for the weight, meanwhile ¶50 shows utilization of current sensor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Sun in the system of Aschauer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 3, Aschauer in view of Ota in view of Sun teaches the transfer device of Claim 1.
Aschauer doesn’t teach, Ota teaches:
wherein: the control section continues the control until the difference between loads on the pair of support bodies becomes a predetermined value or less. [Ota; ¶6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ota in the system of Aschauer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 9, Aschauer in view of Ota in view of Sun teaches the transfer device of Claim 1.
Aschauer teaches:
A carrier for carrying a transfer target by moving along transfer origins which are sequentially arranged,
said carrier comprising a transfer device recited in claim 1, [Aschauer; Fig. 1].
Aschauer doesn’t teach, Ota teaches:
the transfer device transferring the transfer target between any of the transfer origins and the placement section. [Ota; ¶28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ota in the system of Aschauer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights