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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection to claim 1 under 112, 2nd paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Caporali does not teach “conveyor is drivable with respect to the frame in a direction of conveyance”. Caporali teaches “FIG. 2 further shows the injector bank area 400 with a transition roller 402, proximate to a takeaway conveyor 500. The injector bank area 400 includes the mail transport mechanism of the invention, as described with reference to FIG. 3 and FIG. 4. Similar to the conveyor 200, the conveyor 500 may be a roller or belt type conveyor or other known transporting device. In one implementation, the injector bank area 400 is positioned between the conveyor 200 and the conveyor 500, with the transition roller 402 at a right angle to the transporting direction of the conveyor 500. The conveyor 500 is designed to transport containers with product therein” P0029. As known in conveyor assemblies, a frame is a standard structure of the conveyor, Caporali does not provide a reference numeral for the frame, but it can be seen in Figs. 2-3. Applicant then argues that Caporali does not teach a loading unit for configured to receive a product which loading unit is located at a position along the conveyor, wherein the loading unit comprises a platform for bearing a product”. Caporali teaches “the injector bank area 400 includes at least one pivoting conveyor mechanism 600 which includes transport rollers or belts 602. In aspects of the invention, two or more pivoting conveyor mechanisms 600 may be provided with the invention, depending on the desired capacity of the system. The pivoting conveyor mechanism 600 is positionable between a substantially horizontal position (downward position), e.g., in a substantially same plane with the conveyor 300 and conveyor 500 (FIG. 2), and an upright or loading position (FIG. 3) as depicted by arrow "A". In the loading position, the pivoting conveyor mechanism 600 may be positioned at an angle of approximately 35 degrees or less with respect to the plane of the conveyor 200 and conveyor 500. In one implementation, the pivoting conveyor mechanism 600 may be at a greater angle than 35 degrees so long as the container 100 can be retained thereon in the loading position, e.g., approximately 45 to approximately 90 degrees. To accomplish this, the belts or rollers or other transporting devices may be coated with a friction enhancing material such as, for example, the use of anti-skid paints well known in the industry, or teeth or lugs protruding from the belt. Alternatively, the weight of the container, itself in addition to the products stacked therein, may provide an additional means for retaining the container on the pivoting conveyor mechanism 600, when in the loading position” P0032-0033. Platform is defined as “a flat horizontal surface that is usually higher than the adjoining area”, the platform 602 of Caporali as shown in Figure 3 meets the definition since the claim language as presented does not provide any structural language to differentiate from the cited prior art. The claim language as presented lack structural claim language to differentiate from cited prior art and for that reason, the claims stand rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caporali U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0272292.
Claim 1, Caporali teaches a transport apparatus Fig. 3, comprising: a frame of 400 Fig. 3; a conveyor 400 configured to convey discrete products P,100 to be sorted which conveyor 400 is drivable with respect to the frame in a direction of conveyance P0027; a loading unit 600 for configured to receive a product 100 which loading unit 600 is located at a position along the conveyor 400, wherein the loading unit 600 comprises a platform 602 for bearing a product 100, which platform 602 is mounted to the frame of 400 above the conveyor 400 and tiltable via 604 with respect to the frame of 400 about an axis of rotation between a lying product 400 receiving position and a downwardly directed product 100 releasing position P0033, which axis of rotation is angled with respect to the direction of conveyance of 400; a product transfer device 604 configured to transfer a product 100 from the loading unit 600 to the conveyor 400, wherein the product transfer device 604 comprises a driving system configured to tilt the platform 602 from the lying product 400 receiving position to the product releasing position Fig. 3, hence allowing a product 100 to move downwardly with respect to the platform 602 to the conveyor 400 in a direction which has a component in the direction of conveyance of 400; a first product detector configured to detect a free location at the conveyor 400 for receiving a product P0064; a second product detector configured to detect a product at the loading unit 600 P0064; and a controller C having an input for receiving signals from the first and second product detectors, respectively, and an output for sending a control signal to the product transfer device 604, wherein the controller C is configured such that when the first product detector detects a free location at the conveyor 400 and the second product detector detects a product at the loading unit 600 the product transfer device 604 transfers the product from the loading unit 600 to the free location when the free location passes the loading unit 600 P0064-0066 Fig. 7.
Claim 2, Caporali teaches the conveyor 400 comprises a plurality of discrete carriers 100 located behind each other in the direction of conveyance 400, wherein the first product detector is configured to detect an empty carrier 100 being a free location at the conveyor P0064-0066.
Claim 3, Caporali teaches in the lying product 400 receiving position at 600 an upper face 602 of the platform extends substantially horizontally Fig. 4.
Claim 4, Caporali teaches the axis of rotation of 600 is substantially perpendicular to the direction of conveyance of 400 Fig. 4.
Claim 5, Caporali teaches the platform 602 is mounted to the frame of 400 via a support which is mounted to the frame and tiltable with respect to the frame about the axis of rotation by the driving system 604, whereas the platform 602 is movable with respect to the support by the driving system 604 in a direction which has a component in the direction of conveyance of 400.
Claim 6, Caporali teaches the platform 602 is movable with respect to the support in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation P0049.
Claim 7, Caporali teaches the controller C is configured such that the driving system 604 tilts the support and moves the platform 602 with respect to the support synchronously P0045.
Claim 8, Caporali teaches the controller C is configured such that when the second product detector identifies more than one product at the loading unit 600 the product transfer device 604 is not activated P0064-0066.
Claim 9, Caporali teaches the platform 602 has a flat upper surface so as to allow a product 100 to slide or roll downwardly on the upper surface by gravity when the platform is tilted from the product receiving position to the product releasing position Fig. 4 P0049.
Claim 10, Caporali teaches the second product detector is configured to identify a location of a product 100 on the platform 602 in the direction of conveyance of 400 P0064-0066.
Claim 11, Caporali teaches the apparatus Fig. 3 is provided with a third product detector for identifying a location where a released product from the platform 602 arrives at the conveyor 400 P0036.
Claims 13 and 16, Caporali teaches the second product detector is configured to identify a product on the platform 602, for example by scanning a code on the product, dimensioning the product or weighing the product P0068 P0064-0066; P0068.
Claim 17, Caporali teaches the second product detector P0075 is configured to identify a product 100 on the platform 602 by dimensioning the product 100 P0046.
Claim 18, Caporali teaches the second product detector P0075 is configured to identify a product 100 on the platform 602 by weighing the product P0068.
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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caporali U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0272292.
Claim 12, Caporali teaches a distance between the platform 602 and the conveyor 400 is larger than 50% of the length of the platform 602 as measured in the conveying direction when the platform 602 is in its product receiving position Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to specify the dimensional configuration of the segments which does not affect the use of the transport.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caporali U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0272292 in view of O’Brien, Jr. U.S. Patent No. 6,220,330.
Claims 14-15, Caporali does not teach as O’Brien, Jr. teaches the apparatus Fig. 1 is provided with means 24 for labelling a product on the platform 10 for example by printing a code on the product C4 L10-20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Caporali with the airfoil taught in O’Brien, Jr. with a reasonable expectation of success because
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights