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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of component element numbers and it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element 12A in Fig. 17 does not seem to be described in the specification. While element 12 (window hole) is described and is present in the drawings, no similar introduction is provided for 12A. Appropriate correction is required.
Element 30R in Fig. 15 does not seem to be described in the specification. While elements 30 (frame) and 30P (preceding piece) are described and are present in the drawings, no similar description is provided for 30R. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “on the basis of a detection being result of the track-shoe detection mechanism” on lines 6-7. The phrasing “being results of” may cause confusion. It is recommended to change the phrasing to one more common in the art, such as “on the basis of a detection from the track-shoe detection mechanism” or similar.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a function for measuring a perpendicular-direction distance between the uppermost track shoe and the track-shoe detection mechanism in the track shoe loaded on the pallet and for dispatching the same to the control device” on lines 3-5. This phrasing may cause confusion. It is recommended to change the phrasing to “a function for measuring a perpendicular-direction distance between the uppermost track shoe loaded on the pallet and the track-shoe detection mechanism and for dispatching the same to the control device” or similar.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the control device has a function for lifting the lift device in a cast that the” on line 6. It seems that the word “cast” is intended to be the word “case” as recited similarly on line 9 of claim 3, “a function for stopping the lifting of the lift device in a case that the”. If this is the intended phrasing, appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a control device” on line 4. Claim 1, on which claim 2 is dependent, previously introduced “a control device” on line 6. The language present in claim 2 fails to properly indicate as to whether the control device from claim 1 is being referenced or if a new control device is being introduced. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Furthermore, claim 2 further recites the limitation “the control device” on line 5. If there are two control devices, then this limitation fails to properly indicate which control device is being referenced. However, if it is made clear that only one control device is present in the claims, then this indefiniteness is resolved.
Claim 3 recited the limitation “the uppermost track shoe” on lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, on which claim 3 is dependent, introduces “a track shoe” on line 2. This track shoe is introduced in the singular, and no reference is made to a plurality of track shoes. Thus, the existence of “the uppermost track shoe” is not properly introduced and the phrasing of “uppermost” implies the existence of more than one track shoe. Claim 2 introduces “a plurality of track shoes on an uppermost stage” on lines 2-3 and “a function for determining a type of the track shoe, a position of a bolt hole, a direction in which a rug protrudes, a depth of the rug, and a front side and a rear side of the track shoe, on the basis of information from the track-shoe detection mechanism” on lines 5-7, which is implied to be capable of determining an uppermost track shoe. However, because claim 3 is not dependent on claim 2, claim 3 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the reversed track shoe” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, on which claim 4 is dependent, introduces “a track shoe” on line 2. However, claim 4 provides no indication as to whether this same track shoe is the reversed track shoe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, prior art in the field of endeavor fails to fully teach the combination of limitations present nor would it be obvious to combine multiple teachings to reach the limitations of the claim.
Hisao et al. (JP 2000264270A), hereinafter Hisao, teaches similar limitations to those recited in claim 1. The following references are taken from the machine translation provided by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement.
Hisao teaches similar limitations of
a track-shoe detection mechanism (Figure 2, attitude detection unit 20)
which detects the track shoe being supplied from the track-shoe supply unit (Paragraph 0007, The attitude detection unit 20 has the stopper 16 and the photoelectric sensors 11, 12, 13, and 14, and is a device that recognizes the attitude of the link material from the combination of the presence or absence of light reception by the four photoelectric sensors 11, 12, 13, and 1; It is implied that, because the attitude detection unit detects specific characteristics of the link material, it can likewise use this information to detect the presence of a link generally);
a control device which determines a state of the detected track shoe on the basis of a detection being result of the track-shoe detection mechanism (Paragraph 0007, If the link material 1 is determined not to be in the normal position based on the output signal from the position detection unit 20, the link material 1 is brought to the normal position by the reversal and rotation unit 21 next to the position detection unit 20; It is implied that a control device is required to operate the reversal and rotation unit based on a signal from the detection unit);
a track-shoe pickup mechanism (Figure 2, electromagnet 18)
which picks up the track shoe detected by the track-shoe detection mechanism (Paragraph 0007, the link materials 1 are picked up one by one by an electromagnet 18 and placed on a transport conveyor 15 through a standing portion 19);
a track-shoe transfer device (Figure 3, transport conveyor 15)
which transports the track shoe picked up by the track-shoe pickup mechanism (Paragraph 0007, the link materials 1 are picked up one by one by an electromagnet 18 and placed on a transport conveyor 15 through a standing portion 19);
a track-shoe disposition mechanism (Figure 2, standing section 19)
which disposes the track shoe transported by the track-shoe transfer device in alignment with each partition of a link belt (Paragraph 0007, The standing section 19 is a device for placing the link material 1 upright on the conveyor).
However, while Hisao teaches the general structure of these limitations, it teaches this structure for use with link materials, not track shoes. Both components are present in endless track systems and their manufacture but have different structure as known in the art. Because of this difference in structure, including but not limited to overall size, overall weight, and specific design necessities, it would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt a mechanism used to handling link materials to use with track shoes without significant modifications.
Furthermore, Hisao fails to fully teach the limitations of a track-shoe supply unit that accommodates a pallet on which a track shoe is loaded and is provided a lift device lifting the pallet and a link-belt transport device which transports the link belt and the track shoe on the link belt. While Hisao does teach of a pallet containing link units, it does not teach of a supply unit capable of lifting this pallet and instead teaches of collection directly from this pallet using an electromagnet. Hisao fails to fully teach of a link-belt transport device as the system is focused on position correction for links during conveyance and does not teach any portion of a link belt or assembly of one.
Kazuhisa (JP H0871868A) teaches some limitations of claim 1. The following references are taken from the machine translation provided by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement.
Kazuhisa teaches
a link-belt transport device (Figure 1, conveyor 2)
which transports the link belt and the track shoe on the link belt (Paragraph 0016, The conveyor 2 is a transport path for transporting the track links 1E to be assembled in sequence, and is a horizontal, linear conveyor in which a plurality of rotatable rollers are arranged at right angles to the transport direction (X-axis). A first feed device 3, which will be described later, sequentially feeds the assembled track links 1E from the track link assembling device onto a conveyor. Reference numeral 4 denotes a place where a shoe 5 shown in FIG. 2 is placed on the track link 1E on the conveyor by a transport robot (not shown)).
However, Kazuhisa fails to teach the remaining limitations as its focus is on the assembly of track links on a belt and track shoes with it. As indicated, it does not teach specifics of the transport robot for the track shoe which is the focus of the remaining limitations of claim 1.
Noguchi et al. (WO 2006093228), hereinafter Noguchi, teaches some limitations of claim 1. The following references are taken from a machine translation from PE2E Search and is provided with this office action.
Noguchi teaches
a track-shoe supply unit that accommodates a pallet on which a track shoe is loaded and is provided a lift device lifting the pallet (Figure 4, see pallet 5, pallet support means 16, pallet seating member 46, and pair of cylinders 44; Paragraph 0031, the pair of cylinders 44 moves forward to raise the pallet seating member 46, lift the pallet 5 with the pallet seating member 46, and place the pallet 5 on the pallet seating member 46).
While Noguchi does not specify that the pallet contains a track shoe, the structure of a pallet known in the art is capable of supporting track shoes or similar workpieces. Furthermore, the recited limitation of claim 1 regarding the track-shoe supply unit does not provide any structural language related directly to the needs of a track shoes and thus any system which is capable of supporting and lifting a pallet meets the claim limitation.
However, Noguchi is focused on the area of assembly and manufacturing and not directly correlated to the area of endless track systems and their assembly. Thus, while the teaching above could be provided to systems similar to those as taught by Hisao and Kazuhisa, Noguchi fails to teach any other limitations recited in claim 1.
Thus, while the above-mentioned prior art of record teaches individual limitations of claim 1, they span a variety of areas of endeavor and cannot be easily adapted to reach the recited limitations with the specific object of interest in each limitation being a track shoe. Thus, it would not have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the above teachings to reach the limitations of the claim.
Other related art in the area of endeavor fails to fully teach of a transport system which comprises a pallet lifting mechanism, a detection mechanism, a control device, a transfer device, and a link belt transfer device which is capable of being adapted for use with track shoes. While prior art teaches of transport and assembly systems (see at least US 20190047098), detection systems for assembly machines (see at least CN 106002236A), and track link and shoe assembly systems (see at least US 5214908), the specific combination of such systems with the limitations present in claim 1 would require the combination of three or more teachings in multiple areas of endeavor. It would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the prior art in the area of endeavor to reach the limitations present. Thus, the combination of the recited limitations in claim 1 is considered to distinguish over the prior art in the area of endeavor.
Claims 2-4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, are dependent on claim 1 and further limit the system. Thus, they likewise are considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more the of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights