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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anton (US 20160347550).
Regarding claim-1, Anton discloses transport apparatus (Fig.8) for transporting one or more objects, comprising a support wall (13, Fig.8) having at least one reference surface perpendicular (13 facing mover 20, Fig.8), or inclined by a determinate angle with respect to a horizontal plane (drive surface 13 is no longer horizontal but rather is arranged in a vertical manner [0043]);
at least one transport member (20) configured to support and transport said one or more objects and to be able to move without contact with respect to said reference surface, remaining at a first distance from the latter (Fig.8); and
electric energizing means (18) configured to selectively generate one or more magnetic fields associated with said reference surface, wherein said at least one transport member (20) comprises magnetic means (41) configured to interact with said electric energizing means (18) and consequently cause the selective displacement of said at least one transport member (20), and a safety appendage (42) which extends for a predetermined length, wherein a first end thereof is stably attached on a surface of said at least one transport member (20) (The rotary movement is supported by means of a torsion means 49 such as by way of example a torsion spring. The torsion means 49 is connected both to the movable part 42 and also to the base body 31 of the mover 20 or to the magnet array 41, [0040]) and
a second end thereof is - either permanently attached to an upper part of said support wall (13), or to a fixed element, or alternatively - conformed to temporarily cooperate with said support wall (12) or with said fixed element, in the event of a lack of electric power or of correct interaction between said electric energizing means (18) and said magnetic means (41) (46 is part of 42 and cooperate with support wall 13, [0043]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton (US 20160347550) in view Miki (JP 2546335).
Regarding claim-4, Anton does not teaches wherein said safety appendage (42) comprises at least one rigid fastening member associated, by means of said first end, with said transport member (20) and having said second end hooked, so that it is able to temporarily fasten to said support wall (13) or to said fixed element. Anton lacks hook element.
Miki discloses a carriage for transporting objects (Fig.2, 5) and also, teaches a hook (60, Fig.5) attached to carriage (4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify/provide Anton mover with hook as taught by Miki for purpose to avoid an uncontrolled falling of mover.
Regarding claim-5, Anton as modified wherein said fixed element is associated with said support wall (13).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton (US 20160347550) in view Stefan (US 20210336522).
Regarding claim-12, Anton doesn’t teach transport apparatus (Fig.8) further comprising recovery means configured to return said transport member (20) in proximity to said support wall (13), following an unwanted distancing of said transport member (20) with respect to said support wall (13). Anton lacks recovery means. However, it is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus and well-known in the art in which the use of robots to manipulate or to transfer or to pick transport member or anything are known within the technical field and to the skilled person in the art without involving any inventive steps. Hence, the mere use of such a robot that is at least suitable for moving or adjusting transport member is obvious to the skilled person in the art.
Stefan discloses a shuttle for transporting objects, and also teaches further comprising recovery means (robot) configured to return said transport member (shuttle) in proximity to said support wall, following an unwanted distancing of said transport member (shuttle) with respect to said support wall ([0023], [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to additionally provide Anton system with robot as taught by Stefan for purpose to bring back mover to desired/specified location in case said shuttle moves out of its controlled location.
Regarding claim-13. Anton as modified wherein said recovery means (robot as taught by Stefan) are associated with said at least one reference surface (13) and/or with said base wall, if present.
Regarding claim-14. Anton as modified wherein recovery means (robot as taught by Stefan) are configured as a manipulator (robot/gripper).
Regarding claim-15, Anton as modified wherein manipulator is a robot (robot as taught by Stefan) with several work axis.
Regarding claim-16, Anton as modified transport apparatus (Fig.8) for transporting one or more objects, comprising a support wall (13, Fig.8) having at least one reference surface perpendicular (13 facing mover 20, Fig.8), or inclined by a determinate angle with respect to a horizontal plane (drive surface 13 is no longer horizontal but rather is arranged in a vertical manner [0043]);
at least one transport member (20) configured to support and transport said one or more objects and to be able to move without contact with respect to said reference surface, remaining at a first distance from the latter (Fig.8); and
electric energizing means (18) configured to selectively generate one or more magnetic fields associated with said reference surface, wherein said at least one transport member (20) comprises magnetic means (41) configured to interact with said electric energizing means (18) and consequently cause the selective displacement of said at least one transport member (20), and
recovery means (robot as taught by Stefan) configured to return said transport member (20) in proximity to said support wall (12), for example, following an unwanted distancing of said transport member (20) with respect to said support wall (13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-3, and 6-11 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 MUHAMMAD AWAIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 pm (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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651