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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragan U.S. Patent No. 12,515,896 in view of Mamba U.S. Patent No. 8,115,349.
Claims 1 and 15, Ragan teaches loading apparatus 30 for loading a receptacle 84 attached to a mover 80 with at least one product 34 not belonging to the loading apparatus 30, wherein the mover 80 is part of a conveying apparatus 30, the loading apparatus comprising: the mover 80 with the receptacle 84 attached thereto; at least one feeding device 36 for feeding the at least one product 34; at least one first stator unit 54 with a first movement surface of 54 along which the mover 80 can move; and at least one second stator unit 55 with a second movement surface of 55 along which the mover 80 can move, wherein, in an initial position, the at least one first stator unit 54 and the at least one second stator unit 55 are arranged relative to one another such that the first movement surface of 54 and the second movement surface of 55 substantially form a common plane Fig. 2, wherein the at least one second stator unit 55 can be inclined relative to the at least one first stator unit 54 between the initial position and a final position (during movement), wherein the at least one feeding device 36 is arranged such that the at least one product 34 can be transferred by gravity via 38 from the respective feeding device 36 into the receptacle of the mover 80 C3 L5-15 when the latter is in an inclined loading position assigned to the respective feeding device 36, the inclination angle via 40 of which is substantially equal to the inclination angle of the at least one second stator unit 55 arranged in the final position C3 L15-55, but does not teach as Mamba teaches designed using magnetic levitation technology Abstract. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Ragan with the levitating technology taught in Mamba with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 2, Ragan teaches a section of the at least one feeding device 36 adjacent to the assigned loading position at 38 of the mover 80 is inclined relative to the first movement surface of 54 of the at least one first stator unit 54 (during movement).
Claim 3, Ragan teaches the angle-between the at least one inclined feeding device 36 and the second movement surface of 55 of the at least one second stator unit 55 in the final position is between approximately 160° and approximately 30° Fig. 2.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 4, Ragan teaches the at least one second stator unit 55 has sufficient space for the simultaneous arrangement of at least two movers 80 Fig. 2.
Claim 5, Ragan teaches at least one third stator unit 56 with a third movement surface of 56 along which the mover 80 can move, wherein the at least one third stator unit 56 has substantially the same inclination as the at least one second stator unit 55 in the final position, and wherein the second movement surface of 55 and the third movement surface of 56 substantially form a common plane when the at least one second stator unit 55 is in the final position Fig. 2.
Claim 6, Ragan teaches the at least one third stator unit 56 has sufficient space for the simultaneous arrangement of at least two movers 80 Fig. 2.
Claim 7, Ragan teaches a stop unit 94 via 40 is assigned to the at least one loading position at 38 and, where applicable, to the at least one further position C5 L40-65.
Claim 8, Ragan teaches the at least one third stator unit 56 can be moved into a position in which the third movement surface of 56 substantially forms a common plane with the second movement surface of 55 of the at least one second stator unit 55 and the first movement surface of 54 of the at least one first stator unit 54 Fig. 2.
Claim 9, Ragan teaches the at least one second stator unit 55 is pivotably connected to the at least one first stator unit 54 about a pivot axis via 140 Fig. 18).
Claim 10, Ragan teaches an actuator 102,103 acts on a point of the at least one second stator unit 55 remote from the pivot axis via 54,62,66 C5 L40-60.
Claim 11, Ragan teaches the at least one second stator unit 55 is connected to a pivot mechanism 54,62,66 whose pivot axis is arranged outside the at least one second stator unit 55.
Claim 12, Ragan teaches in that an actuator 102,103 is provided for pivoting the pivot drive via 54,62,66.
Claim 13, Ragan teaches at least two actuators 102,103 are provided which act on points of the at least one second stator unit 55 that are spaced apart from one another C5 L40-65.
Claim 14, Ragan teaches at least two actuators 102,103 are provided which act on points of the at least one third stator unit 56 that are spaced apart from one another C5 L40-65.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights