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, 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 9828187 to Chierego et al. (hereinafter referred to as, “Chierego”).
With respect to claim 1, Chierego discloses
a cross-belt sorter comprising
a plurality of interconnected carriers which are drivable behind each other in a conveying direction (see annotated Fig. 6 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
466
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein
each of the carriers is provided with a cross-belt that provides a product supporting section for supporting a product (see annotated Fig. 15 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
434
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
which cross-belt is drivable in a belt driving direction extending transversely to the conveying direction (col. 1, lines 34-39),
first and second pushing elements are mounted to each said cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 9 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
286
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
for pushing against a product on the product supporting section of the cross-belt in the event that the product on the product supporting section of the cross-belt tends to move with respect to the cross-belt in a direction opposite the belt driving direction, and
each said carrier is provided with side walls along the cross-belt, such that in a neutral position of the cross-belt the first and second pushing elements, the side walls and the product supporting section of the cross-belt form a tray (see annotated Fig. 8 below wherein the side wall 28 and cross-belt form a three sided tray):
PNG
media_image4.png
432
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 2, Chierego teaches wherein each of said first and second pushing elements has an upright orientation with respect to the cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 11 below):
PNG
media_image5.png
308
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and is supported in the belt driving direction by a supporting member which is at least between opposite side edges of the cross-belt that is fixed to each of said first and second pushing elements and to the cross-belt at respective distances from an intersection between each of said first and second pushing elements and the cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 11 below):
PNG
media_image6.png
258
360
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
also see Fig. 13.
With respect to claim 4, Chierego discloses wherein at least one of the first and second pushing elements and the supporting member has a plate shape extending in a transverse direction relative to the belt driving direction (see annotated Fig. 11 below):
PNG
media_image7.png
308
642
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Chierego discloses the first and second pushing elements face each other in a neutral position of the cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 9 below):
PNG
media_image8.png
444
878
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chierego as set out above.
With respect to claim 6, Chierego discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein each of said first and second pushing elements and each said supporting member are made of the same material.
The choice of material and the use of the same material in the pushing elements and the supporting members is a design choice. The specification does not attribute any significance to this limitation. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further, the specification did not suggest the material was critical to the invention. Ex parte Spangler, Appeal No. 2018-003800 (Feb. 20, 2019).
Claims 5, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chierego as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. Np. 9371194 to Ragan.
With respect to claim 5, Chierego discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein each of said first and second pushing elements and each said supporting member are pivotably mounted to each other and to each said cross-belt.
Ragan teaches wherein each of said first and second pushing elements and each said supporting member are pivotably mounted to each other (see annotated Figs. below):
PNG
media_image9.png
784
826
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
410
502
media_image10.png
Greyscale
and to each said cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 9 below):
PNG
media_image11.png
548
848
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ragan with the disclosure of Chierego when choosing a method to move a belt transversely to the direction of the conveyor.
With respect to claim 7, Chierego teaches wherein each of said first and second pushing elements and each said supporting member are an integral unit.
PNG
media_image12.png
241
652
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chierego as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6360877 to Orillo.
With respect to claim 17, Chierigo teaches a cross-belt sorter comprising a plurality of interconnected carriers (see number 5 in Fig. 2) which are drivable behind each other in a conveying direction (see annotated Fig. 6 below):
PNG
media_image13.png
407
802
media_image13.png
Greyscale
, wherein each of the carriers is provided with a cross-belt for supporting a product, which cross-belt is drivable in a belt driving direction extending transversely to the conveying direction (see numeral 5 in Fig. 6), first and second pushing elements are mounted to each said cross-belt for pushing against a product on the cross-belt in the event that the product on the cross-belt tends to move with respect to the cross-belt in a direction opposite the belt driving direction (see Annotated Fig. 9 below):
PNG
media_image14.png
320
716
media_image14.png
Greyscale
,
Chierigo does not teach each said pushing element and each said supporting member are pivotably mounted to each other and to the cross-belt.
Orillo teaches each said pushing element and each said supporting member are pivotably mounted to each other and to the cross-belt (see pushing element 15 in Fig. 3 and in Fig. 9 and col. 3, lines 14-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosure of Chierigo with the teachings of Orillo because Orillo helps with the ability to the pushing element to navigate the circuitous motion of the cross-belt.
With respect to claim 18, Orillo teaches wherein each said pushing element has an upright orientation with respect to the cross-belt and is supported in the belt driving direction by a supporting member which is at least between opposite side edges of the cross-belt, the supporting member is fixed to the pushing element and to the cross-belt at respective distances from an intersection between the pushing element and the cross-belt (see annotated Fig. 3, below):
PNG
media_image15.png
570
708
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10-16 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not teach or disclose a cross-belt conveyor having a belt that rotates in the transverse direction to the overall conveying direction, having two reverse rollers that include an inclination guide for guiding the cross-belt between the reverse rollers. The combination with the rest of the claim language is not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art.
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.”
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