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 (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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 12,486,119 to Kuznecov in view of U.S. Pat. No. 3777873 to Stuart.
With respect to claim 1, Kuznecov discloses an apparatus for transporting an object (see numeral 10 in Fig. 1) including a barcode, the apparatus comprising:
a first line (24) along which the object (16) is transported;
a branch line (28, 30) that branches off from the first line to the side of the first line (col. 2, lines 32-36);
a control unit for determining whether or not to allow the object to turn off the first line to the branch line; and
a second line to which the object is transferred from the branch line (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
766
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first line includes a sorter for allowing the object to turn off the first line to the branch line (see the “ejected” discussed at col. 11, lines 6-8 “…for allowing objects to turn off the first line…”), and
the control unit rotates the object by controlling a rotation unit provided on the branch line (see numeral 26 in Fig. 1 and col. 11, lines 11-18, note information gathered through detection by the sensors “controls” the object orienting apparatus 26).
Kuznecov does not teach and along which the transferred object moves back to the first line. Stuart teaches and along which the transferred object moves back to the first line (see claim 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stuart with the disclosure of Kuznecov because both references concern the rotation of an object while removed from the main conveyor while Kuznecov also concerns returning the object to the main conveyor after being rotated. It is noted that as to claim 1, the fact the second line transfers the object back to the first line has no mechanical determination on the operating of the branch line or the sorter or the rotation that takes place is therefore a design consideration or choice. It is noted that the barcode is mentioned in the preamble but no where else in the claim and therefore not a part of the determination of the patentability of the claim. The barcode becomes an essential part of the instant invention in claim 2.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznecov and Stuart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HU P0500132 to Sabbadini et al.
With respect to claim 2, Kuznecov and Stuart include all the claim language but do not disclose further comprising a first sensor for sensing the object that is moving along the first line, wherein the control unit detects the position of the barcode based on a signal from the first sensor.
Sabbadini teaches comprising a first sensor for sensing the object that is moving along the first line, wherein the control unit detects the position of the barcode based on a signal from the first sensor (see the following language, “On modern packaging machines, such a system includes an optical sensor to detect the position of the barcode on each package; and a control unit to compare the detected position with the theoretical position.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Sabbadini with the disclosures of Kuznecov and Stuart because barcodes provide information that is often used in the managing conveyors.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznecov and Stuart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR20200012589 Kim.
With respect to claim 4, Kuznecov and Stuart include all the claim language but do not disclose wherein the sorter includes a push bar for pushing the object away from the first line toward the branch line.
Kim teaches a push bar for pushing the object away from the first line toward the branch line (see second paragraph of Background Art, in toto). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kim to the disclosures of Kuznecov and Stuart because push-bars are well known in the sorter art for moving objects from one location to another.
Claims 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznecov and Stuart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230227270 to Andreasi et al.
With respect to claims 5, Kuznecov and Stuart include all the claim language but do not disclose wherein the branch line includes an inclined plane that stands at a higher elevation towards the first line.
Andreasi teaches wherein the branch line includes an inclined plane that stands at a higher elevation towards the first line (see annotated Fig. 3b below):
PNG
media_image2.png
634
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and stands at a lower elevation towards the second line (see annotated Fig. 3b below):
PNG
media_image3.png
634
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Kuznecov and Stuart with the teachings of Andreasi to take advantage of gravitational forces in moving the object.
With respect to claim 6, Kuznecov and Stuart include all the claim language but do not disclose wherein the branch line includes a roller.
Andreasi teaches wherein the branch line includes a roller (see [0016], in toto).
With respect to claim 7, Kuznecov and Stuart include all the claim language but do not disclose wherein the rotation unit includes: a hinge axis; and a rotation plate that rotates around the hinge axis.
Andreasi teaches wherein the rotation unit includes: a hinge axis; and a rotation plate that rotates around the hinge axis (see annotated Fig. 4a and 4b below):
PNG
media_image4.png
692
843
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Kuznecov, Stuart and Andreasi include all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the rotation plate includes a protrusion unit on one side.
Andreasi teaches wherein the rotation plate includes a protrusion unit on one side (see [0051] in toto).
With respect to claim 9, Kuznecov, Stuart and Andreasi include all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the branch line further includes a second sensor for sensing the object once the object has reached the rotation plate, the control unit determines whether or not the object has reached the rotation plate based on a signal from the second sensor, and the control unit controls the rotation plate to rotate when the object has reached the rotation plate.
Kuznecov discloses wherein the branch line further includes a second sensor for sensing the object once the object has reached the rotation plate, the control unit determines whether or not the object has reached the rotation plate based on a signal from the second sensor, and the control unit controls the rotation plate to rotate when the object has reached the rotation plate (col. 11, lines 6-18).
With respect to claim 10, Kuznecov, Stuart and Andreasi include all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the object is transferred to the second line while being rotated by rotation of the rotation plate.
Andreasi teaches wherein the object is transferred to the second line while being rotated by rotation of the rotation plate (see notated Fig. 4a below):
PNG
media_image5.png
310
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Kuznecov, Stuart and Andreasi include all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the first line and the second line are belt conveyers.
Kuznecov discloses the first line (see numeral 12 in Fig. 1 and col. 9, lines 40-41) but does not specifically set out that the second line is belt conveyers. However, the use of belts in conveyor systems is well known. Wikipedia defines a conveyor belt as “…the carrying medium of a belt conveyor system”. Kuznecov teaches that the first portion is configured as a conveyer belt, col. 13, lines 20-21).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuznecov, Sabbadini and Stuart.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Kuznecov discloses a method for transporting an object including a barcode, the method comprising:
transporting the object (16) along a first line (see numeral 24 in Fig 1);
in case of failure to detect the position of the barcode, allowing the object to turn off to a branch line by a sorter (28,30);
rotating the object by rotation of a rotation unit (26) provided on the branch line and
transferring the object to the second line for second line (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
766
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
Kuznecov does not disclose a barcode and detecting the position of the barcode based on a signal from a first sensor.
Sabbadini teaches a barcode and detecting the position of the barcode based on a signal from a first sensor (see the following language, “On modern packaging machines, such a system includes an optical sensor to detect the position of the barcode on each package; and a control unit to compare the detected position with the theoretical position.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Sabbadini with the disclosures of Kuznecov and Stuart because barcodes provide information that is often used in the managing conveyors.
Neither Kuznecov nor Sabbadini disclose transporting the object along the second line; and allowing the object to move from the second line back to the first line.
Stuart teaches transporting the object along the second line; and allowing the object to move from the second line back to the first line (see claim 19). It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stuart with the disclosures of Kuznecov and Sabbadini because barcodes often provide information necessary to guide objects being conveyed on conveyors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 and 13 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.
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