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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “drive means” in claim 38.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-31 and 36-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, line 4: the limitation “a conveyor” should be “the conveyor” since the limitation has been previously introduced.
Regarding claim 26, line 2: the limitation “two support members” should be “two of the support members”.
Regarding claim 30, lines 2-3: the limitation “one or more support members” should be “one or more of the plurality of article support members”.
Regarding claim 36, lines 2-3: the limitation “one or more support members” should be “one or more of the plurality of article support members”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 23-27, 29, 32, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaoka (JP 2016022472).
Regarding claim 23, Yamaoka discloses an apparatus for sorting articles comprising: a conveyor (1) having a plurality of article support members (3), each article support member provided to extend longitudinally parallel to a direction of movement of the conveyor, the support members being provided spaced transversely across the conveyor and being pivotable at a first end about a transverse axis to unload the article from the conveyor (fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 24, Yamaoka also discloses each article support member has a releasable latch (25a-d, 26, 27; paragraph 0016 of translation) at a second end opposite the first end.
Regarding claim 25, Yamaoka also discloses the latch is self-latching (paragraph 0016 of translation).
Regarding claim 26, Yamaoka also discloses the support members are configured such that two support members support one article (device is capable of supporting one article on two support members).
Regarding claim 27, Yamaoka also discloses each support member comprises a first part (3) and a second part (25a-d, 26, 27, 29) pivotably connected to the first part.
Regarding claim 29, Yamaoka also discloses arc limiting means (limited to 55 degrees by cams 32; paragraph 0018) provided on at least one of the conveyor or the support member configured to limit an arc of movement of the support member about the transverse axis.
Regarding claim 32, Yamaoka also discloses a method of sorting articles, the method comprising supporting an article on a plurality of article support members (3) arranged transversely across a conveyor (1), and allowing at least one of the article support members to pivot about a transverse axis to unload an article from the conveyor (fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 33, Yamaoka also discloses unlatching an end of the article support member to allow the article support member to pivot about an opposite end to unload the article (fig 1-4).
Regarding claim 35, Yamaoka also discloses limiting an arc of movement of the support member about the transverse axis (limited to 55 degrees by cams 32; paragraph 0018).
Claims 23-25, 27-29 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horii (JP 59036020).
Regarding claim 23, Horii discloses an apparatus for sorting articles comprising: a conveyor (fig 17) having a plurality of article support members (15), each article support member provided to extend longitudinally parallel to a direction of movement of the conveyor, the support members being provided spaced transversely across the conveyor and being pivotable at a first end about a transverse axis to unload the article from the conveyor (fig 8, 11, 16, 17).
Regarding claim 24, Horii also discloses each article support member has a releasable latch (11; fig 8, 11, 16) at a second end opposite the first end.
Regarding claim 25, Horii also discloses the latch is self-latching (fig 8, 11, 16, 17).
Regarding claim 27, Horii also discloses each support member comprises a first part (5) and a second part (16, fig 14 or 19, fig 16) pivotably connected to the first part.
Regarding claim 28, Horii also discloses the first part is configured to support an article and the second part is configured to allow the first part to be raised for weighing the article (fig 14, 16 and 17).
Regarding claim 29, Horii also discloses arc limiting means (14) provided on at least one of the conveyor or the support member configured to limit an arc of movement of the support member about the transverse axis.
Regarding claim 32, Horii also discloses a method of sorting articles, the method comprising supporting an article on a plurality of article support members (15) arranged transversely across a conveyor (fig 17), and allowing at least one of the article support members to pivot about a transverse axis to unload an article from the conveyor (fig 8, 11, 16, 17).
Regarding claim 33, Horii also discloses unlatching an end of the article support member to allow the article support member to pivot about an opposite end to unload the article (fig 8, 11, 16, 17).
Regarding claim 34, Horii also discloses weighing the article prior to unloading (fig 17).
Regarding claim 35, Horii also discloses limiting an arc of movement of the support member about the transverse axis (via element 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-31 and 36-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 38-41 are allowed.
Regarding claim 38, Roda (US Patent 3,575,292) is considered the closest prior art and discloses a conveyor loading apparatus for loading articles onto a conveyor (fig 1), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver (4) configured to receive an article;
a drive means (5) configured to:
raise the receiver into a position for receiving an article to be loaded onto the conveyor (fig 1); and
move the article onto a support surface (11,12) of the conveyor.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 38 is the inclusion of lowering the receiver as the article moves onto the receiver to thereby controllably decelerate the article in combination with the rest of the claim limitations is not taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith R Campbell whose telephone number is (571)270-1015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/KRC/Examiner, Art Unit 3651 12/12/2025
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651