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
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that in reference to Bartelet, tray 16 is not inclined with respect to a horizontal surface until it reaches the luggage drop off station 2. While Examiner can agree the tray 16 is not inclined at supply carrier 23, Examiner would like to make reference to the claim language of the limitation being argued. The claim states “a placement surface of the tray is inclined at an angle of less than 90 degrees with respect to a horizontal surface”, but does not provide a minimum angle of inclination. Therefore, while the tray 16 is horizontal at carrier 23, the angle of inclination is 0, which is less than 90.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues that Bartelet does not disclose “transport information which indicates the transport destination”. Examiner would like to make reference to Page 1, lines 7-15 of Bartelet wherein it is disclosed that the invention relates to self-check in systems wherein passengers drop off luggage at the drop off station, and wherein the luggage is discharged from the drop off station into a luggage sorting station for the purpose of “loading the luggage to an airplane with which the passenger is associated.”. Page 9, lines 18-26 further disclose how RFID are integrated into the carriers 16 to provide a unique identification for each carrier, and Page 7, lines 6-28 further disclose the passenger identification terminal and the interaction with the luggage drop off station. Therefore, between the passenger identification terminal and the RFID tag system, transport information is recorded and read in order to deliver the luggage to the associated airplane.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly cited reference Helgerson (United States Patent US 5,558,206) teaches a double belt conveyor and its ability to carry carriers by its edges, leaving the bottom open.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 11-14, there are no other arguments other than to state the claims rejections should be traversed under the newly amended independent claims 1, 5 and 10.
For the foregoing reasons, 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.
(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, 8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartelet (International Patent Application WO2015050440A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bartelet teaches A transport system comprising: a check-in location at which an article is checked in; (Page 1, lines 4-6: "The present invention relates to a system for checking in luggage. The present invention also relates to a method for checking in luggage, using a system according to the present invention.")a supplying device which supplies, to the check-in location, a tray on which the article is not placed; (Figure 3: Conveyor 21)a detecting device which detects that the article has been placed on the tray at the check-in location; (Page 11, lines 2-4: "The weighing device of luggage dropoff station 2 will sense the increase of weight caused by the piece of luggage 4 and will forward this information to the passenger data server. ")and a transporting device which transports the tray from the check-in location toward a transport destination after detection has been made by the detecting device.(Figure 5: Conveyor belts 18, 19, 22, 23, 24) wherein the supplying device includes a supplying mechanism and a transferring mechanism, the supplying mechanism supplies, to the transferring mechanism, the tray on which the article is not placed while retaining the tray in a posture in which a placement surface of the tray is inclined at an angle of less than 90 with respect to a horizontal surface (Figure 5: Conveyor 23 horizontal), and the transferring mechanism transfers, to the check-in location, the tray which has been supplied by the supplying mechanism (Figure 5: Carrier 16 at conveyor 17).
Regarding Claim 2, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 1. Bartelet further discloses wherein orientation of the tray which is supplied to the check-in location by the supplying device is identical to orientation in which the tray is disposed at the check-in location.(Figure 4: Shows carrier 16 in same orientation)
Regarding Claim 3, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 1. Bartelet further discloses wherein the transporting device includes:a transporting mechanism which is provided at a position that is away from the check-in location and which transports, toward the transport destination, the tray on which the article is placed; (Figure 5: Conveyor belt 18)and a sending-out mechanism which sends out, from the check-in location to the transporting mechanism, the tray on which the article has been placed at the check-in location.(Figure 4: Conveyor 17)
Regarding Claim 4, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 3. Bartelet further discloses wherein the supplying device is disposed such that at least part of the supplying device overlaps with at least the transporting mechanism of the transporting device in a vertical direction.(Figure 4: Conveyor belt 21 overlaps vertically with conveyor belt 22)
Regarding Claim 6, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 3. Bartelet further discloses the supplying mechanism is provided at a position that is away from the check-in location and which supplies, to a supply position that is away from the check-in location, the tray on which the article is not placed; (Figure 5: Conveyor 21) wherein the transferring mechanism transfers, to the check-in location, the tray which has been supplied by the supplying mechanism.(Figure 5: Conveyors 18, 19)
Regarding Claim 8, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 6. Bartelet further discloses wherein the transferring mechanism is disposed such that at least part of the transferring mechanism overlaps with the transporting mechanism in a vertical direction.(Figure 5: Conveyors 18, 19 can overlap with conveyors 22)
Regarding Claim 9, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 6. Bartelet further discloses wherein the supplying mechanism supplies the tray while retaining the tray in a posture in which a placement surface of the tray is inclined at an angle of less than 90 with respect to a horizontal surface.(Figure 5: Conveyor 17 inclined at a range of angles)
Regarding Claim 10, Bartelet teaches A transport system comprising: a check-in location at which an article is checked in; (Page 1, lines 4-6: "The present invention relates to a system for checking in luggage. The present invention also relates to a method for checking in luggage, using a system according to the present invention.")a supplying device which supplies, to the check-in location, a tray on which the article is not placed; (Figure 3: Conveyor 21)a detecting device which detects that the article has been placed on the tray at the check-in location; (Page 11, lines 2-4: "The weighing device of luggage dropoff station 2 will sense the increase of weight caused by the piece of luggage 4 and will forward this information to the passenger data server. ")and a transporting device which transports the tray from the check-in location toward a transport destination after detection has been made by the detecting device.(Figure 5: Conveyor belts 18, 19, 22, 23, 24) one or more reading-out devices each of which reads out, at the check-in location, (i) identification information that is given to the tray in advance and that is unique to the tray(Page 9, lines 18-26: "The carriers 16 have a luggage support surface 31 which may be concave. The carriers 16 further have two upstanding wall parts 32a, 32b at its outer ends, in the longitudinal direction of the carrier. The carriers 16 each comprise a RFI D-tag 33 which may be integrated in its bottom 31 , for example. These RFI D-tags 33 provide a unique identification for each carrier 16. The RFI D tags can be read by RFI D tag readers which as such are known to the skilled person. System 3 comprises such RFI D tag readers at each drop-off location 13. Those RFI D tag readers are schematically illustrated in figure 2 and indicated by reference number 34.")and (ii) transport information which is given to the article placed on the tray and which indicates the transport destination; and an associating device which associates the identification information and the transport information each of which has been read out with each other.(Page 7, lines 6-28: "Figures 1 to 5 illustrate a passenger identification terminal 1 and an associated luggage drop-off station 2 together being part of a system 3 for checking in luggage such as a suitcase 4 of a passenger 5, as an embodiment of a system according to the invention. System 3 comprises several identical combinations of a passenger identification terminal 1 and a luggage drop-off station 2 which combinations are located next to each other. System 3 is controlled by a passenger data server. The passenger identification terminal 1 comprises a screen 6, on which information and questions to be answered for the passenger 5 can be displayed, as well as a keyboard 7 and other input means 8. The keyboard 7 can be used by the passenger 5 to enter plain text data. The other input means 8 provide an alternative means for the passenger 5 to enter data, for instance by inserting a frequent flyer card, a passport or a boarding pass. The passenger identification terminal 1 furthermore comprises a luggage claim tag issuing device 9 which can print and issue luggage claim tags 10. The passenger identification terminal 1 is arranged to determine the passenger identification of passenger 5 on the basis of information input by the passenger 5 via the keyboard 7 or via the other input means 8. Presence of keyboard 7 is not required within the scope of the present invention. The screen 6 is preferably a touch-screen. In an embodiment of a passenger identification terminal within the scope of the present invention, a scanner for a passport and/or boarding pass and/or frequent flyer card, in combination with a touch screen may suffice for the purposes of establishing a passenger identification of the passenger.", wherein the passenger identification terminal which identifies passenger information such as passenger transport information (boarding pass with gate number, destination information etc.) communicates with its associated luggage drop off station in order to transport the luggage)
Regarding Claim 11, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 1. Bartelet further discloses further comprising a container supplying mechanism which supplies, to the check-in location, a container which can accommodate the article and which can be placed on the tray.(Figure 14: Stacker unit 760 shows trays 16 can be stacked, therefore it is possible for the tray to be comprised of two stacked trays 16)
Regarding Claim 12, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 1. Bartelet further discloses wherein the check-in location includes an accommodating body which accommodates the tray,(Figure 2: Conveyor 17)the accommodating body includes: an opening through which the article is put in or taken out from the accommodating body; and a door which opens and closes the opening, and the door is controlled so as to open when the tray is at a specified position at the check-in location.(Figure 2: Gate 12)
Regarding Claim 13, Bartelet teaches the transport system, as set forth in claim 1. Bartelet further discloses further comprising a reciprocating mechanism provided to the check-in location and configured to:(i) receive the tray which has been transferred by the transferring mechanism in a horizontal posture; and(ii) send out the received tray to the transporting device in an inclined posture (Figure 5: Conveyor 17 moves horizontal and inclined as shown by arrow)
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartelet (International Patent Application WO2015050440A1) in view of Helgerson (United States Patent US 5,558,206).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartelet (International Patent Application WO2015050440A1) in view of Jeffery (International Patent Application WO2010136789A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bartelet discloses A transport system comprising: a check-in location at which an article is checked in; (Page 1, lines 4-6: "The present invention relates to a system for checking in luggage. The present invention also relates to a method for checking in luggage, using a system according to the present invention.")a supplying device which supplies, to the check-in location, a tray on which the article is not placed; (Figure 3: Conveyor 21)a detecting device which detects that the article has been placed on the tray at the check-in location; (Page 11, lines 2-4: "The weighing device of luggage dropoff station 2 will sense the increase of weight caused by the piece of luggage 4 and will forward this information to the passenger data server. ")and a transporting device which transports the tray from the check-in location toward a transport destination after detection has been made by the detecting device.(Figure 5: Conveyor belts 18, 19, 22, 23, 24) wherein the transporting device includes:a transporting mechanism which is provided at a position that is away from the check-in location and which transports, toward the transport destination, the tray on which the article is placed; (Figure 5: Conveyor belt 18)and a sending-out mechanism which sends out, from the check-in location to the transporting mechanism, the tray on which the article has been placed at the check-in location.(Figure 4: Conveyor 17), wherein the sending-out mechanism includes a conveyor which is configured to support both edges of the tray, and the sending-out mechanism sends out, from the check-in location by the conveyor, the tray on which the article is placed.(Figure 3: Shows conveyor 17 holding carrier 16).
However, Bartelet does not disclose wherein the conveyor is a double belt.
Helgerson discloses a similar double belt conveyor (Figure 1: Left 4 and right 2 roller assemblies 6 with product carrier 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bartelet to include the double belt conveyor as taught by Helgerson. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for a simple design and arrangement of parts to allow for easy replacement of parts and provide as a mounting base or frame for roller assemblies or endless belts to transport carriers (Column 2, lines 1-21).
Regarding Claim 7, Bartelet discloses the transport system as set forth in claim 6, as seen above.
However, Bartelet does not disclose wherein the transferring mechanism includes a turning mechanism which changes orientation of the tray which has been supplied by the supplying mechanism, to orientation in which the tray is disposed at the check-in location, and the transferring mechanism transfers, to the check-in location, the tray the orientation of which has been changed by the turning mechanism.
Jeffery discloses a similar transport system wherein the transferring mechanism includes a turning mechanism which changes orientation of the tray which has been supplied by the supplying mechanism, to orientation in which the tray is disposed at the check-in location, and the transferring mechanism transfers, to the check-in location, the tray the orientation of which has been changed by the turning mechanism.(Pages 17-18, lines 13-11: "The main difference is the inclusion of a further conveyor 80 between the offloading conveyor 36 and the queueing conveyor 24. The further conveyor 80 is driven in synchronism with the offloading conveyor 36 and comprises a plurality of identical transversely extending slots 82 having a planar outer surface which are linked together to form a continuous endless conveyor. Each slot is provided with a plurality of equally spaced, non-driven, rotatably mounted balls 84 which project slightly above the upper face of the slot in which they are mounted. The balls allow an item of baggage located on the further conveyor 80 to be rotated manually with minimal effort to a desired orientation. It will also be observed that the transition between the further conveyor 80 and the offloading conveyor comprises a plate portion 86 which is provided with a plurality of non-driven rotatably mounted balls 88 which project above the upper surface of the plate portion 86, thereby forming a ball conveyor and further facilitating the manual orientation of items of baggage. The outer edge of the plate portion 86 is provided with a cut-out portion or recess 90 to facilitate rotation of the offloading conveyor 36 and the portion of the conveyor immediately below the cut-out or recess 90 is provided with three identical non-driven rotatably mounted balls 92 projecting above the surface of the conveyor 24, to further facilitate manual orientation of items of baggage.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bartelet to include the turning mechanism as taught by Jeffery. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for a transfer of baggage that is reduces risk of injuries resulting from manual effort (Page 2, lines 20-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13, there is no prior art alone or in combination that included the combination of recited limitations in Claims 1 and 13. The art alone or in combination did not disclose wherein the supplying mechanism supplies the tray to the transferring mechanism while retaining the tray in a posture in which a placement surface of the tray is inclined at an angle of greater than 0 and less than 90 with respect to a horizontal surface. The closest prior art of record Bartelet (International Patent Application WO2015050440A1) teaches a similar transport system comprising a check in system, a supplying device, a tray for articles, a detecting device and a transporting device, but fails to teach the supplying mechanism supplies the tray to the transferring mechanism while retaining the tray in a posture in which a placement surface of the tray is inclined at an angle of greater than 0 and less than 90 with respect to a horizontal surface. Additionally, no other references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest these features in combination with other limitations in the 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 ABBY ALLURA JORGENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:30.
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.
/ABBY A JORGENSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights