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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 10 states “…it is determined that the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation…” . The claim does not set out what is doing the determination. The sensor detects, but it does not determine. The lever moves but it does not determine, but it is not capable of determining. According to applicant’s specification, “…the detection device further includes a judgment device 8 shown in Figure 4 (can be a software hardware combined functional module, such as a controller), which is connected to the sensor 3 in communication for determining whether the object 7 is supplied to a predetermined workstation based on the detection result of the sensor 3.” Neither the sensor not the lever are judgement devices according to applicant’s specification and none other is provided. In responding to this rejection it is noted that there is not currently a provision for a judgment device in the preamble to claim 1. Claims 2-6 and 8-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 1 or, in the case of claim 20, it is rejected for the same defect as is described above for claim 1.
The claims are rejected as best determined based on the 35 USC 112 rejection herein. In some of the claims the words “determined or “determine” are interpreted as statements of intended use given the absence of a determiner of some kind (i.e. a judgement device or controller) in a particular claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Lines 2-3 of claim 6 read, in part, “…the connection shaft is rotatably fit with the connection shaft.” The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6 is rejected as best understood given on the 35 USC 112s rejection herein.
Claim 20 is rejected because lines 11-12 and 14 state “…it is determined…” . The claim does not set out what is doing the determination.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP1994160691 to Kashiwanuma et al.
Kashiwanuma discloses a detection device for detecting whether an object is supplied to a predetermined workstation, comprising:
an installation plate (see numeral 17 in Fig. 2 and para. [0017], second sentence);
a lever member (see numeral 16 in Fig. 2 and para. [0017], second sentence) rotatably installed on the installation plate and rotatable between a first position and a second position (see numeral 18 in Fig. 2 and para. [0017], second sentence, and see annotated Fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
526
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
and
a sensor installed on the installation plate and detecting whether the lever member is in the second position (see numeral 6 in Fig. 2 and paras. [0006] and [0007]), the lever member (16) is rotated from the first position to the second position (see Fig. 2, see para. [0018], in toto, and para. [0020], first sentence) under a pushing of the object (see numeral 14 in Fig. 1 and para. [0020], first sentence) when the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation,
the lever member can be automatically reset to the first position under gravity when no object is supplied to the predetermined workstation (see para. [0018], second sentence),
it is determined that the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation if the sensor detects that the lever member is in the second position (see para. [0019], first sentence) and,
if the sensor does not detect that the lever member is in the second position, it is determined that no object is supplied to the predetermined workstation (para. [0020], last sentence).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwanuma as set out above in view of in view of DE102016111007 to Stauch.
With respect to claim 2, Kashiwanuma discloses all the claim language but does not disclose further comprising a roller rotatably installed on the lever member, the object comes into contact with the roller and pushes the lever member from the first position to the second position through the roller when the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation.
Stauch teaches a roller rotatably installed on the lever member (see numeral 72 in Fig. 3C and page 9, first para., third sentence), the object comes into contact with the roller and pushes the lever member from the first position to the second position through the roller (see annotated Figs. 3C and 3D, below)
PNG
media_image2.png
810
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
when the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation (see numeral 26 in Fig. 3C and page 7, last sentence).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stauch with the disclosure of Kashiwanuma because in both references teach the claimed structure both used to determine the position, or existence, of an object moving along a conveyor prior to its arrival at a workstation. It is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 3, Kashiwanuma discloses all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the lever member is L-shaped and has a first force arm and a second force arm perpendicularly connected to the first force arm, the first force arm and the second force arm are connected to each other and rotatably connected to the installation plate (see annotated Figure below):
PNG
media_image3.png
656
1066
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 4, Kashiwanuma and Stauch disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the roller is rotatably connected to an end of the second force arm.
Stauch teaches wherein the roller is rotatably connected to an end of the second force arm (see annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image4.png
385
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Kashiwanuma with the teachings of Stauch to allow the arm to be displaced as the object (12) moves by.
With respect to claim 5, Kashiwanuma and Stauch disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein an installation shaft is provided at the end of the second force arm and an installation hole is formed in the roller, the installation shaft is rotatably fit with the installation hole.
Stauch teaches wherein an installation shaft is provided at the end of the second force arm and an installation hole is formed in the roller, the installation shaft is rotatably fit with the installation hole (see annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image5.png
529
800
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Kashiwanuma and Stauch disclose all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein a connection shaft is provided on the installation plate, a connection hole is formed on the first force arm and the second force arm, the connection shaft is rotatably fit with the connection shaft.
Kashiwanuma teaches wherein a connection shaft is provided on the installation plate, a connection hole is formed on the first force arm and the second force arm, the connection shaft is rotatably fit with the connection shaft (see annotated Figure below):
PNG
media_image6.png
656
1066
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 18, Kashiwanuma teaches further comprising an elastic element connected between the first force arm of the lever member and the installation plate to apply an auxiliary resetting force to the lever member resetting the lever member to the first position (see annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image7.png
580
814
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19, Kashiwanuma teaches wherein a first connecting post is provided on the first force arm of the lever member and a second connecting post is provided on the installation plate, the elastic element is connected between the first connecting post and the second connecting post (see annotated figure below):
PNG
media_image8.png
504
785
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Kashiwanuma discloses an object conveying system, comprising:
an object conveying device used to transport an object (see numerals 12, 13 in Fig. 1 and [0015], second sentence); to a predetermined workstation (see numeral 11 in Fig. 2 and [0015] second sentence); and
a detection device ([0011] see “detection means such as a Hall element, also see [0007], in toto) installed at the predetermined workstation (11), the detection device detects whether the object is transported to the predetermined workstation ([0020], first sentence), the detection device includes an installation plate (17), a lever member (16) rotatably installed on the installation plate and rotatable between a first position and a second position (see numeral 18 in Fig. 2 and [0017], first sentence), and a sensor installed on the installation plate and detecting whether the lever member is in the second position (22), the lever member is rotated from the first position to the second position under a pushing of the object when the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation (see Fig. 2), the lever member can be automatically reset to the first position under gravity when no object is supplied to the predetermined workstation (see Fig. 2), it is determined that the object is supplied to the predetermined workstation if the sensor detects that the lever member is in the second position and, if the sensor does not detect that the lever member is in the second position, it is determined that no object is supplied to the predetermined workstation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651