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 5 recites the limitation "the body" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the conveyor belt motor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the conveyor belt motor" in line 1. 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li WO 2019/109606.
Claim 1, Li teaches a conveyor system Fig. 1 for feeding stock into a CNC machine Abstract, comprising: a conveyor belt 111; one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator for the conveyor belt 111; an extendable and retractable platform 106, and one or more of a pneumatic, hydraulic, or electric actuator for the extendable and retractable platform 106, wherein the conveyor belt 111 is mounted on the extendable and retractable platform 106; and wherein the platform 106 is configured to extend into and retract from the interior of the CNC machine P4 L11-20.
Claim 3, Li teaches rails (of frame) positioned on the conveyor belt 111 Fig. 1.
Claim 4, Li teaches a stopper 107 at an end of the conveyor belt 111.
Claim 6, Li teaches an external control unit (as known to be used in conveyor systems) via 106 for the conveyor belt motor of 111.
Claim 7, Li teaches an external control unit (as known to be used in conveyor systems) for the extensible and retractable platform 106.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, further comprising an external control unit (as known to be used in conveyor systems) for the extensible and retractable platform 106.
Claim 10, Li teaches the control unit (as known to be used in conveyor systems) extends and retracts the platform 106 based on the machining cycle of the CNC machine Abstract.
Claim 12, Li teaches the conveyor belt motor of 111 continues to operate throughout the extension and retraction of the platform 106 P4 L11-20.
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) 2, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li WO 2019/109606 in view of Miyazaki U.S. Patent No. 10,179,382.
Claim 2, Li does not teach as Miyazaki teaches an actuated door 11a, b via Ma on the CNC machine 1 C3 L30-37. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine system disclosed in Li with the door and controls taught in Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 9, Li does not teach as Miyazaki teaches an external control unit 4 for the automatic door 11a, b via Ma C5 L15-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine system disclosed in Li with the door and controls taught in Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 11, Li teaches the control unit 4 (as known to be used in conveyor systems) extends and retracts the platform 106, but does not teach as Miyazaki teaches in coordination with the control via Ma of the automatic door 11a, b C5 L15-25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine system disclosed in Li with the door and controls taught in Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li WO 2019/109606 in view of Lack U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0235397.
Claim 5, Li does not teach as Lack teaches wheels 34 mounted on the bottom of the body 10 Fig. 1 P0039. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the machine system disclosed in Li with the body configuration taught in Lack with a reasonable expectation of success because
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