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 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 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) 9-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. E. F. Moone (US 1401429) (“Moone”) in view of Ford et al. (US 6357320) (“Ford”) and Curt 1/4" Safety Pin (Home Depot; accessed 17 June 2022; latest comment: 4 June 2019) (“Curt”).
These rejections are similar to the rejections made in the non-final Office action of 17/382,506, mailed on 24 June 2022.
Moone discloses:
Claim 9: inserting a shaft (45) into a shaft receiver (via 46/47/48/etc.);
Claim 14: connecting the shaft to a wafer pod port comprising a wafer pod (3; intended use) carrying arm configured to carry a wafer pod (arms of 3);
Claim 15: connecting a tilt assembly (6/60’/62’/etc.) to the wafer pod port between the shaft and the wafer pod port;
Claim 16: a wafer pod port configured to receive a wafer pod (3; intended use);
a shaft receiver (via 46/47/48/etc.);
a shaft (45) coupled to the shaft receiver, wherein the wafer pod port is coupled to the shaft receiver through the shaft (FIG. 1);
a pin through the shaft; and
a pin buckle coupled to the pin and extending around the shaft receiver;
Claim 18: a tilt assembly disposed between the shaft and the wafer pod port (6/60’/62’/etc.; FIG. 1);
Claim 19: wherein the wafer pod port comprises a wafer pod carrying arm configured to couple to the wafer pod (arms of 3).
Moone does not directly show:
Claim 9: aligning a hole in the shaft receiver with a hole in the shaft;
inserting a pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft after aligning the hole in the shaft receiver with the hole in the shaft;
applying a pin buckle to the pin, the pin buckle extending around the shaft receiver from a first side of the shaft receiver to a second, diametrically opposite, side of the shaft receiver;
Claim 10: wherein applying the pin buckle to the pin comprises:
inserting the pin through a first loop defined at a first end of the pin buckle; and
inserting the pin through a second loop defined at a second end of the pin buckle;
Claim 11: applying pressure to the pin after inserting the pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft;
Claim 12: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin in a direction perpendicular to a longest dimension of the pin;
Claim 13: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin at an axial center of the shaft receiver;
Claim 16: a pin through the shaft; and
a pin buckle coupled to the pin and extending around the shaft receiver.
Ford shows a similar device having:
Claim 9: aligning a hole in the shaft receiver (22; holes in 22) with a hole in the shaft (shaft 28 in Ford; hole in 28);
inserting a pin (42) through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft after aligning the hole in the shaft receiver with the hole in the shaft (Fig. 1b);
Claim 11: applying pressure to the pin after inserting the pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft (at least capable of applying pressure manually during assembly of apparatus);
Claim 12: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin in a direction perpendicular to a longest dimension of the pin (at least capable of applying pressure manually during assembly of apparatus);
Claim 13: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin at an axial center of the shaft receiver (at least capable of applying pressure manually during assembly of apparatus);
Claim 16: a pin (42) through the shaft;
for the purpose of efficiently replacing a damaged shaft for long life of the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moone as taught by Ford and include Ford’s similar device having:
Claim 9: aligning a hole in the shaft receiver with a hole in the shaft;
inserting a pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft after aligning the hole in the shaft receiver with the hole in the shaft;
Claim 11: applying pressure to the pin after inserting the pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft;
Claim 12: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin in a direction perpendicular to a longest dimension of the pin;
Claim 13: wherein applying pressure to the pin comprises:
applying pressure to the pin at an axial center of the shaft receiver;
Claim 16: a pin through the shaft;
for the purpose of efficiently replacing a damaged shaft for long life of the apparatus.
Curt shows a similar device having:
Claim 9: applying a pin buckle to the pin (C portion), the pin buckle extending around the shaft receiver from a first side of the shaft receiver to a second, diametrically opposite, side of the shaft receiver (two loops on C portion; see the picture of the Safety Pin);
Claim 10: wherein applying the pin buckle to the pin comprises:
inserting the pin through a first loop defined at a first end of the pin buckle; and
inserting the pin through a second loop defined at a second end of the pin buckle (two loops on C portion);
Claim 16: a pin buckle coupled to the pin and extending around the shaft receiver (two loops on C portion; see the picture of the Safety Pin);
for the purpose of keeping the pin in place for insuring safety of the rotating machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moone and Ford as taught by Curt and include Curt’s similar device having:
Claim 9: applying a pin buckle to the pin, the pin buckle extending around the shaft receiver from a first side of the shaft receiver to a second, diametrically opposite, side of the shaft receiver;
Claim 10: wherein applying the pin buckle to the pin comprises:
inserting the pin through a first loop defined at a first end of the pin buckle; and
inserting the pin through a second loop defined at a second end of the pin buckle;
Claim 16: a pin buckle coupled to the pin and extending around the shaft receiver;
for the purpose of keeping the pin in place for insuring safety of the rotating machine.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, (loop limitation) and 13 (pin/etc. limitation) of U.S. Patent No. 11,600,506 (“USPN1”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims fit in (are broader than) the claims of USPN1.
Claims 6, 10, and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 (belt limitation), 1 (loop limitation), and 9 (pin buckle), respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,002,699 (“USPN2”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims fit in (are broader than) the claims of USPN2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent Claim 1 overcomes the prior art since it requires inserting a shaft into a shaft receiver, aligning a hole in the shaft receiver with a hole in the shaft, inserting a pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in the shaft after aligning the hole in the shaft receiver with the hole in the shaft and applying pressure to the pin through a pin screw extending through the shaft receiver and the shaft in combination with the other claim limitations.
The prior art of record does not disclose this combination of limitations. For example, Moone discloses shaft 45 and a shaft receiver (via 46/47/48/etc.), however, Moone does not disclose inserting shaft 45 into a shaft receiver, aligning a hole in the shaft receiver with a hole in shaft 45, inserting a pin through the hole in the shaft receiver and the hole in shaft 45 after aligning the hole in the shaft receiver with the hole in shaft 45 and applying pressure to the pin through a pin screw extending through the shaft receiver and shaft 45 in combination with the other claim limitations. Similarly, other prior references do not disclose all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the claims are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 17 and 20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Moone does not disclose a gear coupled to the shaft receiver, wherein a pin screw extends through the gear and the shaft receiver or a pin screw through the shaft receiver and through the shaft, wherein the pin screw abuts a side surface of the pin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 760158 discloses endless member e.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights