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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder, that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “angle adjustment mechanism” of claim 4, in which the generic place holder “mechanism” is coupled with the functional language of “angle adjustment”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gibbs et al. (US 2016/0159574).
In regard to claim 1, Gibbs shows a conveyor alignment mechanism 20 with a mounting frame 24 for operatively mounting the conveyor alignment mechanism to a conveyor frame and a substructure 26 pivotably mounted to the mounting frame 24 by means of a main pivot 27. A pair of steering rollers 34A/34B are mounted relative to the substructure in outward-facing cantilevered fashion relative to the substructure 26.
It is recognized that the steering rollers 34A/34B are supported at their outward, distal ends so that if the term “cantilevered fashion” is interpreted narrowly, it could be argued that the steering rollers 34A/34B are not mounted in cantilevered fashion as required by the claims. However, it is believed that the above quoted term may reasonably be interpreted more broadly in the context of the claim language requiring that the steering rollers are “mounted relative to the substructure in outward-facing cantilevered fashion” as the steering rollers are clearly outward facing relative to the substructure 26 and as they are part of a steering roller assembly 28A/34A or 24B/24B that is cantilevered relative to the substructure. As such it is believed that the steering rollers are mounted in “cantilevered fashion”.
In regard to claim 2, at least a portion P of each of the steering rollers is tapered (see the annotated figure below).
In regard to claim 3, each steering roller 34A/34B is pivotably adjustable relative to the substructure (see paragraph 0019, the spindle 38 and the threaded shank 40 passing thought wing strut member 28A/28B).
In regard to claim 12, the conveyor alignment mechanism further includes comprising at least a first central roller 32A arranged between the pair of steering rollers 34A/34B (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 13, the conveyor alignment mechanism includes two central rollers 32A/32B arranged on opposite sides of the main pivot 27.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 17, each steering roller 34A/34B is pivotably adjustable in a vertical plane substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane in which the substructure 26 is pivotable about the main pivot 27.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kelderman et al. (WO 2011/005091).
In regard to claim 1, Kelderman shows a conveyor alignment mechanism 2 with a mounting frame 21 for operatively mounting the conveyor alignment mechanism to a conveyor frame 5a/5b and a substructure 30/31/32/33a/33b/52 pivotably mounted to the mounting frame 24 by means of a main pivot 25/26. A pair of steering rollers 40a/40b are mounted relative to the substructure in outward-facing cantilevered fashion relative to the substructure 30/31/32/33a/33b/52.
It is recognized that the steering rollers 40a/40b are supported at their outward, distal ends so that if the term “cantilevered fashion” is interpreted narrowly, it could be argued that the steering rollers 40a/40b are not mounted in cantilevered fashion as required by the claims. However, it is believed that the above quoted term may reasonably be interpreted more broadly in the context of the claim language requiring that the steering rollers are “mounted relative to the substructure in outward-facing cantilevered fashion” as the steering rollers are clearly outward facing relative to the substructure 30/31/32/33a/33b/52 and as they are part of a steering roller assembly 45a/40a or 40b/45b that is cantilevered relative to the substructure. As such it is believed that the steering rollers are mounted in “cantilevered fashion”.
PNG
media_image2.png
760
1142
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, at least a portion P of each of the steering rollers is tapered (see the annotated figure below).
In regard to claim 3, each steering roller 40a/40b is pivotably adjustable relative to the substructure (see the angles α and β in figure 4 and the curved slots 36a/36b and supports 46a/46b).
In regard to claim 12, the conveyor alignment mechanism further includes comprising at least a first central roller 39 arranged between the pair of steering rollers 40a/40b (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 17, each steering roller 40a/40b is pivotably adjustable in a vertical plane substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane in which the substructure 30/31/32/33a/33b/52 is pivotable about the main pivot 25/26.
Claims 1, 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hallermann (DE 20 2004 002 968).
In regard to claim 1, Hallermann shows a conveyor alignment mechanism with a mounting frame 6 for operatively mounting the conveyor alignment mechanism to a conveyor frame 4/4 and a substructure 5/10 pivotably mounted to the mounting frame 6 by means of a main pivot 8/9. A pair of steering rollers 2/3 are mounted relative to the substructure in outward-facing cantilevered fashion relative to the substructure 5/10 (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
468
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, each steering roller 2/3 is pivotably adjustable relative to the substructure 5/10 (see the angles movement indicator A in figure 1 and the plates 147 with curved slots 18).
In regard to claim 12, the conveyor alignment mechanism further includes comprising at least a first central roller 1 arranged between the pair of steering rollers 2/3 (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 17, each steering roller 2/3 is pivotably adjustable in a vertical plane substantially perpendicular to a horizontal plane in which the substructure 5/10 is pivotable about the main pivot 8/9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 14-16, and 21 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651