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 § 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 1-2, 11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth (US Patent 1,022,332).
Regarding claim 1, Roth discloses a conveyor system (fig 2), comprising:
a tray (d1) suspended by two or more vertical supports (h1), such that the tray travels in a forward direction (toward the right in fig 2) from a tray high point toward or through a tray low point;
a one directional continuously rotating input mechanism (c1) that:
during a first portion of a single rotational cycle moves the tray in a backward direction, opposite the forward direction, to the high point (fig 2; page 2, col 1, lines 7-35); and
during a second portion of a single rotational cycle allows unrestrained freefall of the tray in the forward direction (fig 2; page 2, col 1, lines 17-30); and
a bumper (m) positioned to provide a sudden stop to the tray as the tray travels in the forward direction, such that the tray bounces and travels in the backward direction, and such that a conveyed material positioned on the tray continues in the forward direction due to a forward momentum of the conveyed material (fig 2; page 2, col 1, lines 17-30).
Regarding claim 2, Roth also discloses vertical supports are positioned in a V shape with respect to one another (hangers d1 flare outward in a v shape between bar a1 to trough d1).
Regarding claim 11, Roth also discloses the bumper is positioned past the tray low point such that the tray is configured to travel through the tray low point (fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Roth also discloses the tray includes side walls extending vertically from a base of the tray (best seen in fig 3 cutaway, but can still be seen in fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Roth also discloses a method of conveying materials, comprising:
moving a tray (d1) in a backward direction during a first portion of a rotational cycle, the tray configured to be moved by a one-directional continuously rotating input mechanism (c1);
releasing the tray in unrestrained freefall in a forward direction during a second portion of a rotational cycle (fig 2; page 2, col 1, lines 17-30);
providing a sudden stop (m) to the tray at a bumper as the tray travels in the forward direction; and
bouncing the tray in a backward direction, such that conveyed material on the tray continues in the forward direction due to a forward momentum of the conveyed material (fig 2; page 2, col 1, lines 17-30).
Regarding claim 18, Roth also discloses hanging the tray from two or more vertical supports (h1).
Regarding claim 19, Roth also discloses swinging the tray from the two or more vertical supports (h1).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Marcus (US Patent 736,753).
Roth disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not disclose the two or more vertical supports are straps.
Regarding claim 3, Marcus teaches two or more vertical supports are straps (page 2, col 1, lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vertical supports of Roth to be straps as taught by Marcus in order to allow the vertical supports bend or roll on and off the tray thereby better supporting the tray (page 2, col 1, lines 26-34).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Knapp (US Patent 2,689,037).
Roth disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not disclose (claim 14) a second tray supported by the two or more vertical supports and (claim 15) the second tray is hard coupled to the first tray.
Regarding claim 14, Knapp teaches a first and second tray (10 and 11).
Regarding claim 15, Knapp also teaches the second tray is hard coupled to the first tray (via clamp 12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tray of Roth to include a first and second tray and the second tray is hard coupled to the first tray as taught by Knapp in order to allow for telescopic extension to create a desired length based on the application (col 1, lines 5-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12, 16 and 20 are 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 Keith R Campbell whose telephone number is (571)270-1015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/KRC/Examiner, Art Unit 3651 6/11/2026
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights