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.
Claims 12 and 13 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 12, it recites the limitation "the second adapter" in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Due to its dependency, claim 13 inherits the 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application US 20200033883 A1 (hereinafter Theobald).
Regarding claim 1, Theobald teaches a conveyor arrangement, comprising a first mobile conveyor (Fig 13, No. 30), comprising: a first conveying track adapted to convey an object between different positions along the first conveying track (Fig. 1, Nos. 64 and 32), and a drive module adapted to change its position within an area of operation, in particular in a non-mechanically track-bound manner (paragraph 38 and Fig. 13); wherein the first conveying track is fixed to the drive module, so that changing the position of the drive module leads to a similar change of [[the]] position of the first conveying track (Fig 13); wherein the conveyor arrangement is adapted in a manner that by operation of the drive module the first mobile conveyor can be transferred between a handover state, and a separated state in relation to a second conveying track of a second conveyor (2)[[,]];wherein during the handover state the first conveying track is in alignment with [[a]] the second conveying track of [[a]] the second conveyor , so that by operation of the first and second conveying tracks an object can be transferred between the first conveyor and the second conveyor; and wherein during the separated state the first conveying track is not in alignment with the second conveying track so that by operation of the first and second conveying tracks the object cannot be transferred between the first conveyor and the second conveying track (Figs. 2-4 & 13).
Regarding claim 2, Theobald teaches the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a second stationary conveyor, in particular a plurality of second stationary conveyors, comprising:[[-]] a second conveying track (21) adapted to convey said object (9) between different positions along the second conveying track (21), and[[-]] a support frame (22) adapted to stationary stationarily support the second conveying track (21) at a predefined position (Figs. 2-4, Nos. 36 & 34 & Fig 13, Nos. 36A-C & Nos. 34A-C).
Regarding claim 14, Theobald teaches that the second conveyor is stationary (Figs. 2-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0167888 (hereinafter Messina).
Regarding claim 3, Theobald discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, but does not disclose any connectors.
Messina discloses connectors that provide a connection between the fits and second conveyor (pg. 11, lines 22-23), and provides power for operating the second conveying track (pg. 11, line 6-11).
Regarding claim 4, Theobald discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, but does not disclose an energy storage source for providing power to the drive module and the operation of a second conveying track.
Messina discloses an energy storage source (Fig. 1A, No. 180) that powers the second conveyor (pg. 11, line 6-11). Additionally, Messina indicates that the wheels of the drive module are motorized, meaning there must be an on-board power source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor arrangement of Theobald with the connectors and power source of Messina. The motivation would be to increase energy efficiency by only powering conveyors when they are in use.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald in view of US Patent 11,208,270 (hereinafter Sewart).
Theobald discloses the conveyor arrangement of claim 1, and discloses a controller adapted to drive the drive module (¶28) and to issue a control signal to the second conveyor (¶60). Theobald does not disclose that the controller receives a signal from the second sensor.
Seward discloses that light emitting and receiving arrays can be disposed about the first or second conveyor belts, and they communicate with the controller (Claims 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 6, Theobald and Sewart disclose the conveying arrangement of claim 5 but Theobald does not disclose any sensors that detect objects in both the stationary and moving conveyor.
Seward discloses sensors that emit light to allow the controller to detect the presence of items and approximate their size (claims 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor arrangement of Theobald with the sensing arrangement of Sewart. The motivation would be to allow the controller to have more information about the conveying arrangement to make decisions based on its programming, or to give the information to a human user for further decisions.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald in view of non-patent literature https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1rDVR9ytmw (Hereinafter RVJimD) in further view of US Patent 11,208,270 (hereinafter Sewart).
Regarding claim 7, Theobald discloses the conveyor arrangement according to claim 1, in addition to inherently teaching transfer edges. However, Theobald does not teach any sort of crush protection, or the distance between the transfer edges.
Sewart discloses that the gap between the two conveyors must be less than one inch (Claim 1, column 23, lines 62-65).
RVJimD demonstrates a tensioning mechanism for a conveyor belt similar to the crush protection mechanism of Figs. 7a and 7b in the present application. RVJimD uses a hand to show how the idler roller retracts and tension is loosened when the hand contacts the belt, and he remains unharmed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor arrangement of Theobald with the tensioning mechanism of RVJimD and the distance requirement of Sewart. to put enough tension on the belt to maintain functionality, but not so much tension that a person obstructing the tension would be harmed, and minimize products falling through.
Regarding claim 8, Theobald, RVJimD, and Sewart disclose the conveyor arrangement of claim 7, but Sewart and Theobald do not disclose any elements of the crush protection mechanism.
RVJimD discloses a transfer edge to receive or give a product on the conveyor, and a roller support, and shows how the mechanism is spring urged in a direction facing the transfer edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the conveyor arrangement of Theobald and Sewart with the spring mechanism of RVJimD. The motivation would be to have a crush mechanism comprising of simple widely available parts; that is easy to operate and maintain; and that meets safety needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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 12 & 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651