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 filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Robbin does not teach “a transfer unit by which the at least one workpiece can be moved in a transverse direction oriented transverse to the main conveyor direction of” (claim language as presented) and further argues that Robbin does not teach “a transfer unit, as set forth in claim 1. A transfer unit as set forth in claim 1 and supported by the Present Specification is an integral part of each conveyor unit and is capable of moving the workpiece in a transverse direction relative to the main conveying direction. This corresponds to the conveyor unit itself having the active mechanism to laterally shift the workpiece (or the receiving unit holding it) relative to its own chassis. At least paragraphs 117-119 and 145 of the present specification clearly describe this function, where a transfer frame (152) actively displaces a receiving unit (144) to bridge a gap, for example. Robbin does not teach or suggest such a mechanism. Instead, Robbin discloses a system where the entire transport carriage (20) as a whole changes its direction of travel by following a switch or a branch in the physical track system. (See Robbin, FIGS. 9-11). There is no mechanism on the carriage of Robbin that independently moves the workpiece or the securing device (26) sideways or laterally relative to the carriage's chassis (28). Accordingly, Robbin teaches a passive route change of the entire vehicle, not an active, internal workpiece transfer, as set forth in claim 1. Since Robbin fails to disclose an integrated transfer unit for active workpiece displacement” page 8 L1-13. Figure 9 of Robbin shows main conveyor direction 24 with a transfer unit 120 to moves the workpiece 12,18 in a transverse direction to the main conveyor direction 24 to the transfer unit 120. Applicant does not provide the structural claim language to differentiate from the cited prior art as argued that Robbin does not teach the mechanism. The use of generic placeholders and broad language as “can be” leaves the claim to be interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (The Board’s construction of the claim limitation "restore hair growth" as requiring the hair to be returned to its original state was held to be an incorrect interpretation of the limitation. The court held that, consistent with applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of three patents from analogous arts using the same phrase to require only some increase in hair growth, one of ordinary skill would construe "restore hair growth" to mean that the claimed method increases the amount of hair grown on the scalp, but does not necessarily produce a full head of hair.). Thus the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 84 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Buszard, the claim was directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture. 504 F.3d at 1365, 84 USPQ2d at 1750. The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s interpretation that equated a "flexible" foam with a crushed "rigid" foam was not reasonable. Id. at 1367, 84 USPQ2d at 1751. Persuasive argument was presented that persons experienced in the field of polyurethane foams know that a flexible mixture is different than a rigid foam mixture. Id. at 1366, 84 USPQ2d at 1751. Applicant has not defined “a transfer unit” with structural claim langue to overcome the cited prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning to claim 8, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The use of housings in conveyor lines of manufacturing systems is commonly known and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use to in a manufacturing environment to provide the environment necessary for the intended use of workpiece.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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) 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robbin U.S. Patent No. 10,359,234.
Claim 1, Robbin teaches conveyor device 10 for conveying workpieces 12,18, optionally vehicle bodies 12,18 Fig. 1, the conveyor device 10 comprising: one or more conveyor units 20, wherein the one or more conveyor units 20 each include: a carriage Fig. 3 comprising a drive 48.1,48.2 by which each of the conveyor units 20 can be moved along a main conveyor direction of 24 of the conveyor device 10 Fig. 2 C5 L15-25; a receiving unit 26 for receiving at least one workpiece 12,18 C4 L20-35; a transfer unit 120 by which the at least one workpiece 12,18 can be moved in a transverse direction Fig. 9 oriented transverse to the main conveyor direction of 24, optionally to a further conveyor device 10 and/or from a further conveyor device 10 C9 L30-50.
Claim 2, Robbin teaches the receiving unit 26 is movable via 20 relative to a chassis (support of 10 Fig. 1) of the corresponding conveyor unit 10,120 by the transfer unit 120, wherein the receiving unit 120 optionally is movable by a motor via 46 in the transverse direction C5 L5-20.
Claim 3, Robbin teaches the transfer unit 120 includes a transfer frame of 120 on which at least one conveyor element 52.1 of the receiving unit 26 is movably fastened, and wherein the transfer frame of 120 is movable relative to the chassis (support of 10 Fig. 1) by an extension drive of 46 of the transfer unit 120, optionally can be displaced in the transverse direction by a motor 48.1,48.2.
Claim 4, Robbin teaches the receiving unit 26 includes at least one conveyor element 27, optionally at least one conveyor belt and/or at least one conveyor chain, onto which the at least one workpiece 12,18 can be placed and which can be moved via 10 and/or driven by a transfer drive 52.1 and/or an extension drive 52.1 of the transfer unit 120.
Claim 5, Robbin teaches the transfer unit 120 includes an extension device 52.1 by which the receiving unit 26 is movable via 48.1,48.2, optionally linearly displaceable, as a whole and/or relative to a chassis (support of 10 Fig. 1) of the carriage Fig. 3.
Claim 6, Robbin teaches the conveyor device 10 includes a housing which surrounds an interior which conveys the workpieces 12,18 Fig. 1 Abstract.
Claim 7, Robbin teaches a transfer drive 52.1 of the transfer unit 120, an extension drive 52.1 of an extension device 52.1, and/or a traction drive 52.1 of the carriage Fig. 3 are arranged outside an interior surrounded by the housing (along conveying path).
Claim 9, Robbin teaches conveyor device 10 according to claim 6, wherein the receiving unit 26 of each conveyor unit 10,120 is arranged in the interior and is movable completely within the housing by the transfer drive 52.1 and/or the transfer unit 120, optionally an extension drive 52.1 of the transfer unit 120 (in housing during drying treatment).
Claim 10, Robbin teaches treatment system 10 Abstract for treating workpieces 12,18, optionally for cleaning and/or coating and/or heating/cooling vehicle bodies, wherein the treatment system includes a plurality of treatment stations and at least one conveyor device 10,120 designed as a main conveyor device 10 according to claim 1 C2 L1-25 Fig. 1.
Claim 11, Robbin teaches one or more of the treatment stations 12 each includes one or more station conveyor devices 10,120, wherein the at least one conveyor device 10,120 is a main conveyor device 10 by which the workpieces 12,18 can be conveyed along the main conveyor direction of 10, and wherein the workpieces 12,18 can be transferred by means of the transfer units 120 of the conveyor units 10,120 to the one or more station conveyor devices 16, and/or can be taken from the one or more station conveyor devices 10,120 C6 L15-25 C3 L65-67; C4 L1-10 Figs. 1-11.
Claim 12, Robbin teaches a free space or gap at 134 is arranged between the at least one conveyor device 10,120 including a main conveyor device 10 and the one or more station conveyor devices 134, which free space or gap at 134 can be bridged by moving, optionally displacement by motor 48.1,48.2, of the receiving unit 26, optionally the transfer frame of 120 of the transfer unit 120 Fig. 11.
Claim 13, Robbin teaches treatment system 16,70 according to claim 10, wherein the workpieces 12,18 can be conveyed along the main conveyor direction of 10 in a transverse orientation at 120 by the at least one conveyor device 120 including a main conveyor device 10 Fig. 9, and can be introduced into one or more treatment stations 16,70 without change in orientation, and/or can be transferred to one or more station conveyor devices 120 without change in orientation Fig. 9.
Claim 14, Robbin teaches method for treating workpieces 12,18, optionally for cleaning and/or coating and/or heating/cooling vehicle bodies, wherein at least one conveyor device 10,120 according to claim 1 is used Abstract.
Claims 15 and 17, Robbin teaches method according to claim 14, further including the following: conveying at least one workpiece 12,18 by the conveyor device 11010,120 along the main conveyor direction of 10; introducing the at least one workpiece 12,18 into a treatment chamber 16,70 of one of the treatment stations Abstract, wherein the at least one workpiece 12,18 is transferred by the transfer unit 120 to a station conveyor device 134 of the treatment station Fig. 11; carrying out a treatment step in the treatment chamber 16; and discharging the at least one workpiece 12,18 from the treatment chamber 16 and transferring the at least one workpiece 12,18 to the receiving unit and/or transfer unit 120 of the conveyor device 10,120 C9 L30-50.
Claim 16, Robbin teaches method for treating workpieces 12,18, optionally for cleaning and/or coating and/or heating/cooling vehicle bodies, wherein at least one treatment system according to claim 10 is used Abstract.
Claim 18, Robbin teaches the drive 48.1,48.2 includes a traction drive 44.1.
Claim 19, Robbin teaches the transfer unit 120 is to move the at least one workpiece 12,18 relative to the conveyor unit 20 in a lateral direction that is transverse to the main conveyor direction 24.
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbin U.S. Patent No. 10,359,234 in view of Iglio U.S. Patent No. 10,870,125.
Claim 8, Kim does not teach as Iglio teaches conveyor device 10 according to claim 6, wherein the housing 11 includes a feedthrough opening, optionally a feedthrough slot, through which the one or more conveyor units 13 extend, wherein the feedthrough opening, optionally the feedthrough slot, extends at least approximately parallel to the main conveyor direction, and wherein the one or more conveyor units 13 can be moved along the feedthrough opening, optionally along the feedthrough slot of 11 Fig. 1 C2 L35-50. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Robbin with the housing taught in Iglio with a reasonable expectation of success because
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
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