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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of September 19, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on September 19, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-23 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(s) 1, the language “a centre axle (106) of the guide rails (105) is inclined with the respect to a horizontal direction” renders the claim indefinite. The term “axle” implies something rotating about the axle; however, the claim fails to set forth any rotating part of the rail. Further, the term “centre axle” is confusing as it is unclear what part of the rail is an axle and it is unclear as to what part of the rail is considered “centre”.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the language “adapted to be conveyed by both an endless conveyor and a linear magnetic conveyor” renders the claim indefinite because while the claim recites structure (“magnetic material”) to adapt the pallet to be conveyed by a linear magnetic conveyor, the claim fails to recite structure to adapt the pallet to be conveyed by an endless conveyor. Therefore, the claim language is unclear as to what structure is implied by “adapted to be conveyed by…an endless conveyor”.
Claims 2-11, 13-23 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be treated as best understood.
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.
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(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodewes et al. (USPN 6540064) in view of Fukukawa (USPN 8511235).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Bodewes et al. (USPN 6540064) teaches a conveyor track comprising an endless conveyor (3) and a linear magnetic conveyor [Col. 3:54-55, “linear electric motors”], wherein the conveyor track is arranged to convey a pallet (4) with both the endless conveyor and the linear magnetic conveyor, wherein the endless conveyor is a chain conveyor or a belt conveyor (conveyor belt 3) or a roller conveyor, wherein the endless conveyor comprises support rails (seen in Figure 1, but not numbered) arranged at each side of the endless conveyor, wherein the support rails are configured for supporting the pallet sideways when the pallet is conveyed by the endless conveyor (the rails are on each side of the pallet; therefore, the pallet would be supported sideways), wherein the linear magnetic conveyor comprise guide rails (15, 16) arranged at each side of the magnetic conveyor, wherein the guide rails are arranged to support and guide the pallet on the linear magnetic conveyor (the rails support the pallet through frame 18, see Figure 3). Bodewes fails to teach the linear magnetic conveyor is configured to drive the pallet by means of magnetic material that is provided on the pallet, wherein a centre axle of the guide rails is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction. Fukukawa teaches a pallet (12) having magnetic material (magnet 72) that interacts with a linear magnetic conveyor (stator 32) and having a guide rail (11) with a centre axle inclined with respect to a horizontal direction. In Figure 6, wheel (28) contacts an inclined surface (11a) of the rail. Therefore, the line normal to the surface (11a) is considered to be the centre axle which is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction. The inclined surface allows for vertical support and lateral guidance of the pallet [Col. 7:63-67] while allowing the pallet to be removed from the linear magnetic conveyor [Col. 8:3-6, “supporting the platform car 12 relative to the rails in a state of being detachable in the vertical direction”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bodewes et al. such that the linear magnetic conveyor is configured to drive the pallet by means of magnetic material that is provided on the pallet, wherein a centre axle of the guide rails is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction in order to provide vertical support and lateral guidance while allowing the pallet to be removed for maintenance.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the centre axle is inclined with between 30 to 45 degrees with respect to a horizontal direction. Fukukawa discloses the inclined centre axle. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed range, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient to incline the centre axle of the guide wheel between 30 and 45 degrees with respect to the horizontal direction. The angle of the axle would have an effect on the vertical and horizontal components of the force applied by the pallet.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodewes et al. in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bausenwein et al. (USPN 7597187).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Bodewes eta l. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the guide rails are pointed. Bausenwein et al. (USPN 7597187) teaches a linear magnetic conveyor having pointed rails (21) and pallets (3) having rollers (22), the rollers having a V-shaped groove (see Figure 6, also Col. 10:22-24). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The pointed rail and grooved wheel would maintain the wheel position relative to the rail. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pointed guide rail as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the guide rail comprises an upper bearing surface and a lower bearing surface. The rails of Bausenwein et al. have an upper and lower bearing surface (as seen in Figure 6, surfaces above and below the point of the rail). The surfaces would interact with the wheels to maintain the position of the pallet. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide upper and lower bearing surfaces to interact with wheels on the pallets to guide the pallets.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the angle between the upper bearing surface and a lower bearing surface is between 60 to 90 degrees. The surfaces of the rail of Bausenwein et al. would have an inherent angle in order to form a point. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed range, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient to specify the angle between the upper and lower bearing surfaces. The angle of the surfaces would have an effect on the vertical and horizontal components of the force applied by the pallet.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodewes et al. in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobs (USPN 6876107).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the guide rails are convex and semi-circular. Jacobs teaches a linear magnetic conveyor (stator modules 20, 25) and a pallet (mover 40) and teaches rails (142) that are convex and semi-circular that interact with concave wheels (140). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The convex rail and concave wheel would maintain the wheel position relative to the rail. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide guide rails that are convex and semi-circular as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodewes et al. in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagome et al. (USPN 11831216).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the guide rails comprise a V-shaped groove. Nakagome et al. (USPN 11831216) teaches a pallet (50) having a wheel (57) that is pointed with a V-shape (as illustrated, also Col. 4:38-41) to fit to a rail (26) having a V-shaped groove. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The complementary shape of wheel and rail maintains the position of the pallet. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rail with a V-shaped groove as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodewes et al. in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neubauer (USPN 10569974).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Bodewes et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the guide rails comprise a concave and semi-circular groove. Neubauer (USPN 10569974) teaches a pallet (210) running on rails (240-1,240-2) through rollers (280-1 through 280-4). Neubauer teaches the rollers can have convex, concave or cylindrical surface with corresponding rails [Col. 9:55-58]. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rails with a concave and semi-circular groove as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Claim(s) 12-14, 16, 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (USPN 6876107) in view of Fukukawa (USPN 8511235).
Regarding Claim(s) 12 and 23, Jacobs (USPN 6876107) teaches a pallet (40) for a conveyer system, wherein the pallet is adapted to be conveyed by both an endless conveyor and a linear magnetic conveyor, wherein the pallet comprises a body having a front side (shown in the figures), a rear side (shown in the figures), right side (shown in the figures), a left side (shown in the figures), an upper side (shown in the figures) and a bottom side (shown in the figures), where the right side is provided with a first guide wheel (140, seen in Figure 4) and a second guide wheel (140, seen in Figure 4), where the left side is provided with a third guide wheel (140, seen in Figure 4) and a fourth guide wheel (140, seen in Figure 4), and where the bottom side of the pallet is provided with a magnetic material (130) such that the pallet can be driven by the linear magnetic conveyor. Jacobs further teaches an endless conveyor (conveyor shown in Figure 5 moving along direction 172) and a linear magnetic conveyor (linear motor modules 20, 25). Jacobs fails to teach the rotational axle of each guide wheel is inclined with respect to a vertical direction. Fukukawa (USPN 8511235) shows a pallet (12) having wheels (28, see Figure 6) with an inclined rotational axle (as illustrated). The inclined axle allows for vertical support and lateral guidance of the pallet [Col. 7:63-67] while allowing the pallet to be removed from the linear magnetic conveyor [Col. 8:3-6, “supporting the platform car 12 relative to the rails in a state of being detachable in the vertical direction”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jacobs such that the rotational axle of each guide wheel is inclined with respect to a vertical direction in order to provide vertical support and lateral guidance while allowing the pallet to be removed for maintenance. The claim language does not recite any specific structure that would make the pallet adapted to be conveyed by an endless conveyor; therefore, the combination of Jacobs and Fukukawa would be considered to be adapted to be conveyed by an endless conveyor.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Jacobs teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the rotation axle of a guide wheel is inclined between 30 and 60 degrees. Fukukawa discloses the inclined rotation axle. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed range, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art as engineering expedient to incline the rotation axle of the guide wheel between 30 and 60 degrees. The angle of the axle would have an effect on the vertical and horizontal components of the force applied by the pallet.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Jacobs teaches each guide wheel is provided with a groove (as seen in Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Jacobs teaches the groove is concave and semicircular (as seen in Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Jacobs teaches the magnetic material is positioned symmetrical with respect to the guide wheel (as seen in Figures 4 and 9).
Regarding Claim(s) 20, Jacobs teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the magnetic material is positioned towards the front side of the pallet. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Absent evidence of the criticality of the claimed arrangement, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position the magnetic material towards the front side of the pallet as engineering expedient to change the center of gravity of the pallet.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, Jacobs teaches the magnetic material overlaps the first guide wheel and the third guide wheel. The claim language does not specify a direction of overlap; therefore, a line can be drawn from the guide wheels to the magnetic material in which the magnetic material would overlap the guide wheels along that line.
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Jacobs teaches the magnetic material does not overlap the second guide wheel or the fourth guide wheel. The claim language does not specify a direction of overlap; therefore, a line can be drawn from the guide wheels in which the magnetic material would not overlap the guide wheels along that line.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bausenwein et al. (USPN 7597187).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Jacobs teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the groove is V-shaped. Bausenwein et al. (USPN 7597187) teaches a pallet (3) having rollers (22), the rollers having a V-shaped groove (see Figure 6, also Col. 10:22-24). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The groove would maintain the roller position relative to the rail. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a V-shaped groove as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakagome et al. (USPN 11831216, having an effectively filed date of August 27, 2019).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Jacobs teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach each guide wheel is pointed with a V-shape. Nakagome et al. (USPN 11831216) teaches a pallet (50) having a wheel (57) that is pointed with a V-shape (as illustrated, also Col. 4:38-41) to fit to a rail (26). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The complementary shape of wheel and rail maintains the position of the pallet. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the wheel with a V-shaped point as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Fukukawa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Neubauer (USPN 10569974).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Jacobs teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach each guide wheel is convex and semi-circular. Neubauer (USPN 10569974) teaches a pallet (210) running on rails (240-1,240-2) through rollers (280-1 through 280-4). Neubauer teaches the rollers can have convex, concave or cylindrical surface with corresponding rails [Col. 9:55-58]. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a wheel that is convex and semi-circular as engineering expedient to guide the wheel on the rail.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 10608518 discloses a track having an endless conveyor and a linear magnetic conveyor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653