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 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.
Claim 2 is 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 "the floor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pippin (US 20130230373 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1, Pippin discloses a method of moving items, the method comprising: positioning a support platform (402) next to a receiving surface (406), wherein an item supporter extends over at least part of a length of the support platform, the item supporter (210) comprising an elongated flexible sheet, wherein multiple items (208) are disposed on the flexible sheet of the item supporter; securing the item supporter to a puller (410); and moving the puller so as to pull the item supporter and the items thereon off the support platform and onto the receiving surface.
Re claim 2, Pippin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the support platform is formed by the floor of a transport container (Fig. 4; [043]).
Re claim 3, Pippin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving surface is formed by a portion of a conveyor (Fig. 4; [042]).
Re claim 4, Pippin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the items include palletized goods (Fig. 2; [045]).
Re claim 5, Pippin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the item supporter includes a first strip that forms at least part of the flexible sheet and extends over a length of the item supporter (Fig. 2).
Re claim 7, Pippin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the item supporter includes an attacher, and wherein securing the item supporter to the puller includes coupling the puller to the attacher (Fig. 11c; [042]).
Re claim 8, Pippin discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the attacher includes a section of the flexible sheet that forms a loop (Fig. 11c; [042]).
Re claim 9, Pippin discloses the method of claim 8, wherein coupling the puller to the attacher includes extending a bar through the loop of the attacher and attaching the puller to the bar/rod (Fig. 11c; [042]).
Re claim 15, Pippin discloses a system for moving multiple items out of a transport container (202), the system comprising: an item supporter (210) comprising an elongated flexible sheet, wherein the flexible sheet is sized and shaped to hold the items while the item supporter is positioned in the transport container and has a length of at least 3 meters (Fig. 2, trailers are 13.6m long); a conveyor (406) including a receiving surface sized and shaped to be positioned next to an opening of the transport container; and a puller (410) securable to the item supporter and movable along a length of the conveyor so as to pull the item supporter and the items thereon onto the conveyor.
Re claim 17, Pippin discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the puller includes a hook.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kauhanen (WO 2005080132 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
488
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, Kauhanen discloses a method of loading multiple items (18) into a container (19), the method comprising: positioning an item supporter (13) on a surface of a loading plate (15), the item supporter comprising an elongated flexible sheet; positioning the items on the flexible sheet of the item supporter; positioning the loading plate with the item supporter and the items thereon in the container and above a floor of the container; constraining movement of the items; and while constraining the items, retracting the loading plate from the container to enable the item supporter and items thereon to descend onto the floor of the container (page 14, lines 14-37).
Re claim 14, Kauhanen discloses the method of claim 11, wherein, while retracting the loading plate from the container, a first friction force between a first item of the items and the flexible sheet of the item supporter is higher than a second friction force between the loading plate and a portion of the flexible sheet corresponding to a footprint of the first item (implicit; page 14, lines 14-37).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pippin (US 20130230373 A1).
Re claim 6, Pippin does not teach the method of claim 5, wherein the item supporter includes multiple strips including the first strip, and wherein the strips are spaced across a width of the item supporter and extend substantially parallel to one another over the length of the item supporter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the number of strips to increase the load capacity and handling flexibility of the system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauhanen (WO 2005080132 A1).
Re claim 13, Kauhanen does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein after retracting the loading plate from the container, a distance between a top surface of a first item of the multiple items and an upper wall of the container is no more than 15 centimeters.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size of the cargo/container so that a distance between a top surface of a first item of the multiple items and an upper wall of the container is no more than 15 centimeters to maximize the capacity of the container while allowing relative movement, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pippin (US 20130230373 A1) in view of Kauhanen (WO 2005080132 A1).
Re claim 10, Pippin does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, before positioning the support platform next to the receiving surface, loading the items onto the support platform, wherein loading the items comprises: positioning the item supporter on a surface of a loading plate; positioning the items on the flexible sheet of the item supporter; positioning the loading plate with the item supporter and items arranged thereon above the support platform; constraining movement of the items; and while constraining the items, retracting the loading plate from the support platform to enable the item supporter and items to descend onto the support platform.
Kauhanen, on the other hand, discloses a method of loading comprising the steps of loading the items onto the support platform, wherein loading the items comprises: positioning the item supporter on a surface of a loading plate; positioning the items on the flexible sheet of the item supporter; positioning the loading plate with the item supporter and items arranged thereon above the support platform; constraining movement of the items; and while constraining the items, retracting the loading plate from the support platform to enable the item supporter and items to descend onto the support platform (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in at the time of filing to combine the loading method described by Kauhanen with the unloading method of Pippin to enjoy the same level of efficiency on both ends of the loading/unloading workflow.
Re claim 16, Pippin does not teach the system of claim 15, wherein the puller is fixed on a moving element of the conveyor. Instead, the puller is driven by a separate retractor motor (e.g., 1016).
Kauhanen, on the other hand, discloses strips that are pulled by a loading conveyor (pg. 8, lines 8-9).
Then, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in at the time of filing to drive the puller by the conveyor in view Kauhanen to reduce complexity and the number of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAUL J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7097. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
SAUL J. RODRIGUEZ
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights