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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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.
Regarding claim 1 line 2 the limitation “an automated loading part configured to load thereon a first freight” is unclear. It is not clear if the automated loading part is loading itself onto the first freight, vice versa, or something else. Amending the claim to positively affirm what is being loaded onto what would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 1 line 4 the word “thereon” is unclear for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 1 lines 7 & 8 the limitation “a replacement part configured to replace the first freight and the second freight together with the buffer part” is unclear. It is not clear if “repleace” means to put the first and second freights back somewhere where they were before, if this means to replace them with different items in the same place (i.e. replace the first freight with a third freight, replace the second freight with a fourth freight), or something else. Amending the claim to rephrase this limitation with greater specificity and avoid the word replace would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 2 the limitation “loads the first freight on the buffer part on the transporting part” is unclear. It is not clear if it is loading the first freight, which is presently located on the buffer part, onto the transporting part, if it is loading the buffer part, which presently has the first freight on top of it, onto the transporting part, or if all three are stacked one on top of the other and are being loaded together onto some fourth thing. Amending the claim to clarify what is being loaded from where onto where would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 3 the limitation “moves the second freight loaded on the automated loading part to an outside of the replacement part” is unclear. It is unclear as to if the second freight is simply presently located on the automated loading part before being loaded or if both are being loaded to the outside together. Amending the claim to clarify what is being loaded from where onto where would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 3 the limitation “the transporting part transports the first freight loaded on the transporting part” is unclear. It is unclear if the transporting part may be transporting itself or just the first freight. Amending the claim to clarify what is being transported from where onto where would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 4 the limitation “the measured weight” is unclear. It is not clear if this is the same as “a weight of the first freight” claimed above or if this is a different weight. Amending the claim to positively affirm what is weighed would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 6 the limitation “freight” is unclear. It is unclear if this includes the first and second freight, if this is only the first and second freight, or if this is freight other than the first and second freight. Amending the claim to clarify what the freight is would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 9 the limitation “replacing” is unclear for the same reasons as “replacing” was unclear in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation “loading the second freight on the automated loading part by the replacement part” is unclear. It is not clear if the loading is being performed by the replacement part or if the final location of the second freight is proximal (“by”) the automated loading part or some other thing. Amending the claim to clarify what is being loaded and where to would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation “loading the first freight loaded on the buffer part on the transporting part by the replacement part” is unclear as to if the buffer and/or transporting parts are being loaded or just the first freight and further unclear as to what is meant by “by”. Amending the claim to rephrase this limitation with greater specificity would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 11 the limitation “moving the second freight loaded on the automated loading part to an outside of the replacement part by the automated loading part” is unclear for the same reasons as claim 10 and require similar correction to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 11 the final line includes the phrase “by” which is unclear for the reasons outlined above and requires the same correction to overcome this rejection.
All claims are examined as best understood.
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.
(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(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 100329021 B1 (herein after referred to as ‘021).
Regarding claim 1 ‘021 teaches a freight replacement apparatus comprising: an automated loading part (FIG. 10: 7) configured to load thereon a first freight (FIG. 19: 5B) and move to a designated position (7 is a conveyor); a transporting part (FIG. 10: 8) configured to load thereon a second freight different from the first freight and transfer the second freight (FIG. 17: 5A); a buffer part disposed between the automated loading part and the transporting part (FIG. 10: 3); and a replacement part configured to replace the first freight and the second freight together with the buffer part (FIG. 12: 11 & 12).
Regarding claim 5 ‘021 teaches that the replacement part comprises: a plurality of support frames disposed vertically on positions spaced apart from each other (FIG. 4: 41); a horizontal frame mounted on the support frames (FIG. 4: 42 & 43); a guide rail mounted on both left and right sides of the horizontal frame along a longitudinal direction of the horizontal frame (FIG. 4: 74); and a freight transfer unit configured to be driven forward and backward on the guide rail and to be raised and lowered in a vertical direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (FIG. 14 & 15: 11 & 12).
Regarding claim 9 ‘021 teaches loading a first freight (FIG. 13: 5B) on an automated loading part (FIG. 10: conveyor surface of 7) and moving the automated loading part to a designated position (FIG. 10: depicted); loading a second freight different from the first freight (FIG. 13: 5A) on a transporting part (FIG. 10: 8) and transporting the second freight; placing a buffer part between the automated loading part and the transporting part (FIG. 10: 3); and replacing the first freight and the second freight by a replacement part together with the buffer part (claimed movements allowed for by structure).
Regarding claims 7 & 13 ‘021 teaches that the first freight is a wound bobbin on which a material is wound, and the second freight is an empty bobbin which the material is absent, or the first freight is the empty bobbin, and the second freight is the wound bobbin (FIG. 13: depicted with 5B being wound and 5A being unwound).
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.
Claim(s) 8 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100329021 B1 (herein after referred to as ‘021) in view of Park et al. (KR 20220071348 A, herein after referred to as Park).
Regarding claims 8 & 14 ‘021 does not explicitly teach that the material comprises an electrode material of a battery. However, Park does teach this (abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the electrode material of Park as the material for ‘021 in order to have the wound material be useful for something.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 100329021 B1 (herein after referred to as ‘021) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 1765728 A, herein after referred to as Zhang).
Regarding claim 6 ‘021 teaches that the freight transfer unit comprises a lifting mechanism configured to transport the freight updward and downward (FIG. 9: 51) and a holding mechanism configured to hold the freight (FIG. 8: 63 & 69) but does not explicitly teach a driving mechanism configured to transport the freight forward and backward or a rotation mechanism configured to change a loading direction of the freight.
However, Zhang does teach a driving mechanism (FIG. 4: 143) and a rotation mechanism (FIG. 5: 16). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the driving mechanism and rotation mechanism to allow the freight transfer unit of ‘021 better automation and versatility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 & 10-12 is/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:
Regarding claims 2 & 10 no prior art made of record teaches a buffer part measuring a weight of the first freight when the first freight is loaded on the buffer part.
A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach freight systems of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Samuel J Morano IV can be reached on (571) 272-6684. 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights