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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4880099 to Leemkuil et al., hereinafter, “Leemkuil”.
With respect to claim 1, Leemkuil discloses an apparatus comprising: a first wheel; a driving gear; a belt stretched around the first wheel and the driving gear, the belt comprising one or more first geometrical features configured to move an object in a first direction while the belt is rotating in a first rotational direction and one or more second geometrical features configured to move the object in a second direction while the belt is rotating in a second rotational direction, wherein the driving gear is configured to rotate the belt in the first rotational direction and the second rotational direction; and an angle adjustment component configured to adjust an angular orientation of at least a portion of the belt based at least in part on whether the belt is rotating in the first rotational direction or the second rotational direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
494
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 2, Leemkuil discloses a frame that is physically coupled with (i) the first wheel via an axel of the first wheel and (ii) the driving gear via an axel of the driving gear, wherein the angle adjustment component adjusts the angular orientation of the at least the portion of the belt by adjusting an orientation of the frame (see annotated Fig. 7 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
448
1001
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Leemkuil discloses wherein the one or more first geometrical features (the upper surface of the belt 4 and see annotated Fig. 2 above) are configured to maintain an orientation of the object while diverting the object from a first conveyer to a second conveyer (applicant’s specification at para. [0041], fifth and sixth sentences, states, in sum, belts with cleats may be used to divert packages without changing orientation of the package).
With respect to claim 12, Leemkuil discloses wherein the belt defines a width, wherein a width of the one or more first geometrical features is within 10-100mm of the width of the belt.
The upper surface of the belt 4 is the geometrical feature (see annotated Fig. 1 above) and per force of logic it is within 10-100mm of the width of the belt.
With respect to claim 14, Leemkuil discloses wherein the belt defines a circumference, wherein a first portion of the belt comprises the one or more first geometrical features and a second portion of the belt adjacent to the first portion comprises the one or more second geometrical features.
A given portion of the upper surface of the belt constitutes the first geometrical feature and a second given portion of the upper surface of the belt constitutes the second geometrical feature (see annotated Fig. 1, supra).
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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemkuil in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6264042 to Cossey et al.
With respect to claim 3, Leemkuil discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the one or more first geometrical features comprise a first plurality of cleats of variable thickness and the one or more second geometrical features comprise a second plurality of cleats of variable thickness.
Cossey teaches wherein the one or more first geometrical features comprise a first plurality of cleats of variable thickness and the one or more second geometrical features comprise a second plurality of cleats of variable thickness (see annotated Fig. 5 below):
PNG
media_image4.png
836
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 4, Cossey teaches wherein a thinnest cleat of the first plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 1mm and up to 10mm, and wherein a thickest cleat of the first plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 10mm and up to 50mm (see col. 9, lines 15-39). The thickness of the cleat is associated with the size of the objects being moved on the conveyor.
With respect to claim 5, Cossey teaches wherein a thinnest cleat of the second plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 1mm and up to 10mm, and wherein a thickest cleat of the second plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 10mm and up to 50mm (see col. 9, lines 15-39). (N.B. Note that the size of the first and second plurality cleats repeat in groups of three).
With respect to claim 7, Cossey teaches wherein a difference between a thickness of adjacent cleats is at least 0mm and up to 5mm (see col. 9, lines 15-25).
With respect to claim 9, Leemkuil teaches further comprising a second wheel, wherein: a position of the first wheel is lower than a position of the second wheel in a first angular configuration for diverting the object in the first direction; and the position of the first wheel is higher than the position of the second wheel in a second angular configuration for diverting the object in the second direction (see Leemkuil annotated Figs. 5, 6 below):
PNG
media_image5.png
458
889
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Leemkuil teaches wherein the driving gear is configured to drive the first wheel and the second wheel by rotating the belt in a clockwise or an anticlockwise direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below):
.
PNG
media_image6.png
398
616
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemkuil and Cossey and further in view of U.S. Pub. no. 2024/0124248 to Jain.
With respect to claim 15, Leemkuil discloses a diverting mechanism comprising: a first wheel; a driving gear; and a belt stretched around the first wheel and the driving gear (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
PNG
media_image7.png
494
877
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Leemkuil does not disclose the belt having a first plurality of cleats configured to move an object in a first direction and a second plurality of cleats configured to move the object in a second direction opposite the first direction; and one or more idler rollers installed between at least two longitudinal frames for carrying the object in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the first plurality of cleats is positioned at least partially above the one or more idler rollers for a duration to move the object in the first direction.
Jain teaches the belt having a first plurality of cleats (212) configured to move an object in a first direction and a second plurality of cleats configured to move the object in a second direction opposite the first direction; and one or more idler rollers installed between at least two longitudinal frames for carrying the object in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the first plurality of cleats is positioned at least partially above the one or more idler rollers for a duration to move the object in the first direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below):
PNG
media_image8.png
862
1066
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Leemkuil with the teachings of Jain because diverters are often used to divert objects from a main direction (third direction) onto opposite side directions. Diverters are well known in the industry and the ability to divert objects from a main conveying direction to 2 or more directions would make the system more beneficial providing more options distribution.
With respect to claim 16, Leemkuil teaches a frame that is physically coupled with (i) the first wheel via an axel of the first wheel and (ii) the driving gear via an axel of the driving gear, wherein an angle adjustment component adjusts an angular orientation of at least a portion of the belt by adjusting an orientation of the frame (see annotated Fig. 1, below):
PNG
media_image9.png
494
883
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Leemkuil discloses wherein a thinnest cleat of the first plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 1mm and up to 10mm, and wherein a thickest cleat of the first plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 10mm and up to 50mm (see col. 9, lines 15-39).
With respect to claim 18, Leemkuil discloses wherein a thinnest cleat of the second plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 1mm and up to 10mm, and wherein a thickest cleat of the second plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 10mm and up to 50mm (see col. 9, lines 15-39).
With respect to claim 20, Leemkuil and Jain include all the claim language but do not disclose wherein a difference between a thickness of adjacent cleats is at least 0mm and up to 5mm.
Cossey teaches wherein a difference between a thickness of adjacent cleats is at least 0mm and up to 5mm (see col. 9, lines 15-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10 and 19 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 prior art does not teach the thicknesses of cleats incrementally increasing or decreasing in size in a clockwise or anticlockwise direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights