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
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding argument A, the Applicant argues that Burk “does not disclose ‘lining up the plurality of movement devices so that the lined-up plurality of movement devices touch one another’ (in a plurality – and in fact teaches collision avoidance.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant does correctly point out that Burk in some cases teaches collision avoidance, Burk does teach that the opposite sides of the carriers can also touch each other as outlined in the office action. Furthermore, the Examiner interpreted the words “collision” and “contact” differently. The definitions used are below:
PNG
media_image1.png
311
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
273
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given that Burk used both the words “collision” and “contact”, this indicates that Burk understands the words differently as well. “Collision” carries a connotation of high force, not mere touching. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Burk teaches against collisions, but not against contact.
Burk states in paragraph 64: “The part supports can alternatively also overlap or contact one another, however” indicating that in at least one embodiment, the carriers can touch each other, and that collision avoidance is not always required.
The Applicant further argues that “Burk's "two-mover" tray-support embodiments do not disclose lining up a "plurality" of movers to touch one another.” The Examiner disagrees, as it is unclear how Burk would function unless the carriers were not lined up first. Furthermore, two carriers constitute a “plurality”, as a “plurality” is by definition more than one.
The Applicant further argues that “Because Burk treats contact as only one optional condition among alternatives (small gap vs. overlap vs. contact), any "touching" arrangement is not necessarily present for position determination and subsequent mover identification and therefore cannot be relied upon as inherent anticipation of Claim 1's mandatory touching requirement.” While the Examiner agrees that a touching arrangement is not necessarily present for position determination, Burk discloses that it still can be present. The disclosure of possibility is still a legitimate disclosure.
Regarding Argument B, the Applicant concludes, “Conclusion for limitation: Even if Burk discloses position determination in general, it does not disclose the claimed step of "determining positions of the lined up plural movement devices" following the claimed "lining up ... touch one another" step, because Burk does not disclose that lined-up touching procedure in the first place”. As previously shown, Burk does disclose “lining up…touch one another”.
Regarding Argument C, the Applicant argues that “Burk contains no disclosure that mover type (first vs. second external geometry) is inferred from relative positions resulting from deliberate lining-up contact” The Examiner disagrees. Burk does teach carriers of different geometries that work together to carry objects (Figs. 10-13), and does teach a control system, wherein each carrier is represented by a transducer (¶0016). The control system also locates and identifies the movers (¶0016). Burk would have to differentiate between first and second type external geometries, for if it did not, the sensors could put mismatched carriers together, rendering the invention inoperable. So, there must be a way for the geometries to be identified.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US
Patent Application US 2018/0265230 (hereinafter Burk).
Regarding claim 1, Burk inherently discloses method of operating a linear electric drive conveyor
having a plurality of movement devices which are electromagnetically and independently movable (claim 37 & ¶0100), wherein the plurality of movement devices has at least one first movement device having a first external geometry and at least one second movement device having a second external geometry which is different from the first external geometry (Figs 7-14, No. 56), the method comprising lining up the plurality of movement devices so that the lined up plurality of movement devices touch one another (¶0001 and 0064); determining positions of the lined up plural movement devices (¶0016); and identifying at least one of the at least one first movement device and the at least one second movement device in the lined up plurality of movement devices based on the determined positions (¶0016).
Regarding claim 4, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the at least one first movement device and the at least one second movement device differ from one another in their outer contours directed in a direction of movement (Figs. 10 & 11, Nos. 56); and the plurality of movement devices are lined up in the direction of movement (¶0001).
Regarding claim 5, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the at least one first movement device has a first tool (Fig 12, No. 56, left); and the at least one second movement device has no tool or a second tool (Fig 12, No. 56, right), wherein the first tool and the second tool are at least one of differently oriented, differently formed and differently arranged (Fig 12).
Regarding claim 6, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the at least one first movement device has a holder (Fig. 7, No. 56 left, ¶0107); and the at least one second movement device has a counterholder (Fig. 7, No. 56 right, ¶0107).
Regarding claim 10, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the identifying takes place at least one of without external sensors and is purely software-based (10016).
Regarding claim 11, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein one of the at
least one first movement device and one of the at least one second movement device are each designed for jointly transporting a transport item (Fig. 7, No. 56 left and right, ¶0107).; that is clamped or held between the one of the at least one first movement device and the one of the at least one second movement device (Fig. 7, No. 56 left and right, ¶0107).
Regarding claim 12, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the at least one first movement device has a plurality of first movement devices (claim 51); the at least one second movement device has a plurality of second movement devices (claim 51); and the plurality of first movement devices and the plurality of second movement devices are arranged alternately one after the other (claim 51).
Regarding claim 13, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, further having at least one of: operating the linear electric drive conveyor in a normal operating mode in response to the identifying (¶0015); and outputting an error message if at least one of the identified at least one first movement device and the identified at least one second movement device is arranged in an order that deviates from a desired order.
Regarding claim 14, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the linear electric drive conveyor is a long-stator linear drive conveyor, a short-stator linear drive conveyor or a planar linear drive conveyor (¶0017).
Regarding claim 15, Burk discloses a linear electric drive conveyor, comprising: a plurality of movement devices which are electromagnetically and independently movable (claim 37 & ¶0100), wherein the plurality of movement devices has at least one first movement device having a first external geometry and at least one second movement device having a second external geometry different from the first external geometry (Figs 7-14, No. 56); and a control unit configured for determining positions of lined-up plural movement devices and for identifying the at least one first movement device and identifying the at least one second movement device based on the determined positions (¶0015).
Regarding claim 16, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the method of operating the linear electric drive conveyor is a method of initializing the linear electric drive conveyor (¶0015); and one of the at least one first movement device and one of the at least one second movement device are each designed for jointly transporting a container that is clamped or held between the one of the at least one first movement device and the one of the at least one second movement device (Fig. 7, No. 56 left and right, ¶0107).
Regarding claim 17, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally wherein the at least one first movement device has a container holder (Fig. 7, No. 56 left, ¶0107); and the at least one second movement device has a container counterholder (Fig. 7, No. 56 right, ¶0107).
Regarding claim 20, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, additionally comprising operating the linear electric drive conveyor in a normal operating mode for transporting transported goods, in response to the identifying (¶ 0015).
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 2, 3, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burk in view
of US Patent Application US 2019/0047794 A1 (hereinafter Ozimek).
Regarding claim 2, Burk discloses the method of claim one, but does not disclose that the
identification is based on predetermined geometry or the difference between predetermined geometry. Ozimek discloses a system of movers on an electromagnetic rail (claim 1), wherein the identifying is further based on the at least one of at least one predetermined geometry information relating to the first external geometry and the second external geometry and a difference between the first external geometry and the second external geometry (claims 6 and 7).
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 identifying method of Ozimek with the method of Burk. The motivation would be so that multiple sensors could calculate the positions of multiple magnet shapes form multiple places, increasing the precision of the sensed location.
Regarding claim 3, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose determining the
distance between the determined positions wherein the identifying is based on the determined
distance. Ozimek discloses a method if identifying a first mover by determining the position of other second movers using sensors, and comparing them, i.e. looking at the difference (10011).
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 method of Burk with the method of Ozimek. The motivation would have been to lower the time and financial cost of identifying movers with RFID tags, for example.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Burk discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose a plurality of sensors. Ozimek discloses a system of movers on an electromagnetic rail (claim 1), wherein the positions are determined via a sensor system (10009).
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 method of Burk with the sensing system of Ozimek. The motivation would be to increase the user's ability to track the location and order of the movers, which may be different in ways the user could not visually distinguish.
Claims 9 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burk in view of EP 3575250 A1 (hereinafter Huber). Burk discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose a method that includes force control. Huber discloses a method for controlling transport units powered by a linear stator motor wherein centrifugal force is controlled by limiting it to a maximum value specified (pg. 29).
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 method of Burk with the force control of Huber. The motivation would be to control the movement of carried objects that are sensitive to movement, e.g. chemicals or hot liquids.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights