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 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.
Claims 23-28, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Application DE 1157151 B (hereinafter Kühn) in view of US 20110150580 A1 (hereinafter Terzini).
Regarding claim 22, Kühn discloses a braking unit for braking a processing element, said braking unit comprising a guide channel for the processing element (Figs. 3 & 4, No. 4), wherein the guide channel has a guide channel inlet and a guide channel outlet, and wherein the guide channel has at least one curved section to apply a centrifugal force to the processing element to be braked that moves along the guide channel (Fig. 3 & ¶0011), said centrifugal force pressing the processing element against an outer curvature region of an inner peripheral surface of the curved section (Fig. 3 & ¶0011), and wherein the at least one curved section is configured to brake the processing element by friction between the inner peripheral surface of the guide channel and the processing element (¶0014).
Kühn does not teach that the friction is high enough such that the processing element loses at least 50% of its kinetic energy between the guide channel inlet and the guide channel outlet.
Terzini discloses a decelerator (Figs 11A-B and 12 A-B) wherein the kinetic energy of the conveyed items is decelerated by a predetermined amount (¶0043). This amount can include 50% or more of the kinetic energy that the conveyed item started with.
Regarding claim 24, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Kühn discloses the at least one curved section is configured to brake the processing element by friction between the inner peripheral surface of the guide channel and the processing element (Fig. 3 & ¶0014).
Terzini discloses a decelerator (Figs 11A-B and 12 A-B) wherein the kinetic energy of the conveyed items is decelerated by a predetermined amount (¶0043). This amount can include 70% or more of the kinetic energy that the conveyed item started with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking unit of Kühn with the predetermined deceleration amount of Terzini. While Kühn teaches a pipe to decelerate the items and Terzini teaches vanes and yokes to decelerate the items, the items need to be conveyed in a timely manner, but also safely. If the deceleration is too rapid the conveyed item will not get to its destination. Conversely, if it is to slow, the conveyed item could incur damage. Furthermore, the formula for kinetic energy is
K
E
=
1
2
m
v
2
. Since the mass (m) of the conveyed item is constant, the only way to reduce the kinetic energy of the object is to reduce its velocity (v). So, the motivation would be to strike a balance between deceleration timeliness and deceleration safety, in order to finely tune the reduction in velocity. Therefore, having a percentage of kinetic energy that needs to be dissipated is obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Terzini further discloses the at least one curved section has an overall curvature of more than 180° (Figs. 12A-B).
Regarding claim 26, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Terzini further discloses wherein the curved section comprises a helical guide channel section (Figs. 12A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn with the braking system curvature of Terzini. While Kühn teaches a pipe to decelerate the items and Terzini teaches vanes and yokes to decelerate the items, the structure of the vanes in Fig. 12A and 12B is helical and therefore, by definition, greater than 180°. The motivation to combine would be that replacing the vanes with a pipe would reduce the likelihood of the conveyed items flying/falling through the gaps in the vanes due to the high centrifugal forces.
Regarding claim 27, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Terzini further discloses that the path that the containers take is fixed (final indentation of claim 1). This indicates that the path does not change as the containers travel along the deceleration route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn with the dimensionally stable path of Terzini. The motivation would be that since gravity has an effect on the centrifugal forces applied, keeping the path the same would ensure that the gravitational effect was consistent and predictable.
Regarding claim 28, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Kühn further discloses that the curved section is defined by a single component (Fig. 3, No. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn with the braking system of Terzini. The motivation would be to have a deceleration path that is simple and cost effective to manufacture.
Regarding claim 31, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Terzini further discloses a radius of the curved section that is smaller than 0.5 m (¶0047). According to Terzini, 150A can have a curved section of radius 1-2ft (0.3-0.61m), and 150B can have a curved section with radius 2ft or greater. The instant claim does not specify the exact nature of the curved section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn with the range of Terzini. The motivation would be to maintain a manageable size of parts to manufacture and assemble.
Regarding claim 38, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Kühn further discloses wherein at least one air outlet opening is provided in the region of the guide channel inlet to release compressed air required for conveying the processing element (¶0011). This paragraph states that the tube is pneumatic. It therefore must, by definition have some sort of inlet for air to enter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn with the braking system of Terzini. The motivation would be to have a standard way for air to work in the system. The paragraph 0011 states that the tube is pneumatic. It therefore must, by definition have some sort of inlet for air to enter.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühn in view of Terzini in further view of US Patent 4,184,357 (hereinafter Stubbings).
Regarding claim 32, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. Neither Terzini nor Kühn disclose however, a brake reinforcing structure. Stubbings discloses “rifling” (Fig. 9, No. 100) to add angular velocity to the moving fastener. And since the edges of the fastener head would contact the rifling, it would, by necessity decelerate the fastener.
Regarding claim 33, Kühn, Terzini and Stubbings disclose the braking unit of claim 32. Neither Terzini nor Kühn disclose however, a brake reinforcing structure to cause the processing element to be braked in a tumbling movement. Stubbings discloses “rifling” (Fig. 9, No. 100) that add angular velocity to the moving fastener. The examiner interpreted “tumbling” as “spinning”, as the definition of “tumbling” would contradict the purpose of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Kühn, Terzini and Stubbings disclose the braking unit of claim 32. Neither Terzini nor Kühn disclose however, a brake reinforcing structure formed as a helical elevated portion. Stubbings discloses helical, spiral rifling (Fig. 9, No. 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Terzini and Kühn with the rifling of Stubbings. The motivation would be to increase the friction in the system, and thereby increase the braking effect. This would lead to the need for a shorter curved section, saving time and material cost.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühn in view of Terzini in further view of EP-0922538-B1 (hereinafter Mauer). Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. But they do not disclose a recess for receiving a tip of the processing element to be braked that extends in the outer curvature region of the inner peripheral surface of the guide channel. Mauer does disclose such a recess (Figs. 2 and 7, No. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking systems of Kühn and Terzini with the recess of Mauer. The motivation would be to guide the tip of the processing element into a predictable, safe path, lowering the likelihood of damage.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühn in view of Terzini in further view of US Patent 2,916,125 (hereinafter Wallberg).
Regarding claim 36, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. They do not disclose a holding element. Wallberg discloses holding element for completely braking and holding the processing element to be braked (Fig. 2, Nos. 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 37, Kühn, Terzini and Wallberg disclose braking unit of claim 36. Wallberg further discloses that the holding mechanism that holds the items for “further processing” (column 1, lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn and Terzini with the holding mechanism of Wallberg. The motivation would be to have a steady, predictable flow of conveyed articles, enhancing production efficiency.
Claims 29, 39-41, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühn in view of Terzini in further view of German Patent DE-202015102153-U1 (hereinafter Kritzenberger).
Regarding claim 29, Kühn and Terzini disclose the braking unit of claim 23. However, they do not disclose the manufacturing methods of the tubes or braking system. Kritzenberger discloses a deceleration tube that is made from additive manufacturing (Abstract). 3D printing is a type of additive manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking systems of Kühn and Terzini with the 3D printed tube of Kritzenberger. The motivation would be to have a reliable way to manufacture consistent tubes. Additionally, 3D printing can create complicated patterns that other manufacturing methods cannot.
Regarding claim 39, Kritzenberger discloses a system comprising a storage container for processing elements (Fig. 1, No. 3), and a feed hose for the processing elements from the storage container to a processing device (Fig. 1, No. 10), and a braking unit that, in an end region of the feed hose, is arranged in front of the processing device in the conveying direction (Fig. 1, R1, R2), said braking unit comprising a guide channel for the processing element, wherein the guide channel has a guide channel inlet and a guide channel outlet (Fig. 1 Nos. 1.1 & 1.2), and
Kühn discloses a guide channel that has at least one curved section to apply a centrifugal force to the processing element to be braked that moves along the guide channel, said centrifugal force pressing the processing element against an outer curvature region of an inner peripheral surface of the curved section (Fig. 3 & ¶0011), and wherein the at least one curved section is configured to brake the processing element by friction between the inner peripheral surface of the guide channel and the processing element (¶0014).
Terzini discloses a decelerator (Figs 11A-B and 12 A-B) wherein the kinetic energy of the conveyed items is decelerated by a predetermined amount (¶0043). This amount can include 50% or more of the kinetic energy that the conveyed item started with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the storage container of Kritzenberger with the decelerator of Terzini with the centrifugal force of Kühn. The motivation would be to have a single system that can store and safely dispense singulated items without damaging them.
Regarding claim 40, Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini disclose the system of claim 39. Kritzenberger further discloses that the system if configured for processing fasteners (page 5, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the decelerator of Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini with the fasteners of Kritzenberger. The motivation would be that Kritzenberger says it can convey fasteners.
Regarding claim 41, Terzini discloses a method for braking a processing element, comprising the steps: inserting the processing element into a curved section of a guide channel at an input speed (claim 17, Fig. 12B, No. 10).
Kühn discloses generating a centrifugal force on the processing element (Fig.3, ¶0011), and generating a centrifugal force-induced friction between the processing element and an inner peripheral surface of the curved section of the guide channel (Fig.3, ¶0011).
Terzini discloses braking the processing element by means of the centrifugal force-induced friction to an output speed that is at most 75% of the input speed (Figs 11A-B and 12 A-B & ¶0043). Terzini discloses a decelerator wherein the kinetic energy of the conveyed items is decelerated by a predetermined amount). This amount can include 75% or less of the kinetic energy that the conveyed item started with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Terzini with the centrifugal force of Kühn. The motivation would be to have a precise way to decelerate rapidly conveyed fasteners safely and in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 43, Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini disclose the system of claim 41. Kritzenberger further discloses that the objects conveyed are fasteners, (page 5, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the decelerator of Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini with the fasteners of Kritzenberger. The motivation would be that Kritzenberger says it can convey fasteners.
Regarding claim 44, Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini disclose the system of claim 43. Kühn discloses that the head of the processing element is in contact with the wall of the tube, thus creating friction (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the braking system of Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini with the bushing head contacting the pipe wall of Kühn. While Kühn conveys bushings, the bushings still have heads. Also, it has been established that it would be obvious to convey fasteners, which have heads and shafts.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini in view of Stubbings. Kühn, Kritzenberger and Terzini disclose the method of claim 41, but not any sort of processing element. Stubbings teaches rifling as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights