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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The preamble of claim 15 falls into the statutory category of apparatus, however the it depends on claim 1 which is the category of method. If this is intended to be an independent claim, it should not refer to another claim. If it is meant to be dependent, then it should have the same preamble as claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (¶0016).
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 to carry out a method according to claim 1 (¶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 (¶0011).
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 (¶0009).
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
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