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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: English units followed by metric units. (0070) 0.020” (0.508 mm) and less than or equal to 0.040” (1.016 mm). From MPEP § 608.01(IV), all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications. Claim 13 has English units followed by metric units. See MPEP § 608.01(IV).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Terrill et al.
Regarding claim 1:
Terrill et al. teaches a system for handling objects, the system comprising:
a lifting apparatus (28) comprising a body and at least two support prongs (19) that extend from the body, each of the at least two support prongs comprising a prong length LP, a prong width WP, and a prong height HP, the at least two support prongs configured to support an object thereon;
a support tray (1) that receives the object from the lifting apparatus, the support tray comprising:
a base extending longitudinally between a first end and a second end and comprising an upper surface spaced apart from a lower surface; a plurality of ridges (15) extending upward from the upper surface of the base, the plurality of ridges defining a support surface parallel to the upper surface of the base; and a plurality of grooves (21) extending downward from the support surface to the upper surface of the base, each groove of the plurality of grooves comprising a groove length LG, a groove width WG, and a groove height HG, wherein each groove of the plurality of grooves is spaced apart from an adjacent groove by one of the plurality of ridges;
and an actuator (20) coupled to the body of the lifting apparatus, wherein:
the prong height HP of each of the at least two support prongs is less than the groove height HG of each groove of the plurality of grooves;
the prong width WP of each of the at least two support prongs is less than the groove width WG of each groove of the plurality of grooves;
and the actuator is operable to manipulate the body of the lifting apparatus to engage the at least two support prongs of the body with the plurality of grooves of the support tray and disengage the at least two support prongs of the body from the plurality of grooves of the support tray and thereby transfer support of the object from the at least two support prongs of the body of the lifting apparatus to the support surface of the plurality of ridges.
In MPEP 2115, in this case, Terrill teaches a system for handling objects, not limiting to green ceramic monoliths as stated in the claim. Inclusion of the green ceramic monolith worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to this claim.
Regarding claim 2:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is operable to at least one of:
raise and lower the body of the lifting apparatus relative to the support tray; or pivot the body of the lifting apparatus relative to the support tray about an axis parallel to the support surface of the plurality of ridges.
Regarding claim 3:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the support tray comprises a plurality of through-holes (18) extending through each of the plurality of ridges from the support surface to the lower surface of the base.
Regarding claim 4:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the support tray comprises a plurality of through-holes extending through the base from the upper surface to the lower surface in each of the plurality of grooves.
Regarding claim 6:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ridges and the plurality of grooves extend across a width of the support tray and are oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
Regarding claim 8:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the support tray comprises one or more protrusions (7) extending outward from sides of the base of the support tray.
Regarding claim 9:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein:
the support tray comprises one or more notches (12) formed in an outer sidewall of one of the plurality of ridges located adjacent to the first end or second end of the base; and a datum surface disposed in each of the one or more notches.
Regarding claim 10:
Terrill et al. teaches a system for conveying an object, comprising:
a lifting apparatus comprising a body and a plurality of support prongs extending from the body, wherein the lifting apparatus is pivotable between a non-vertical configuration for receiving the object in a non-vertical orientation and a vertical configuration for re-orienting the object to a vertical orientation; a support tray for supporting the object in the vertical orientation,
the support tray comprising:
a base extending longitudinally between a first end and a second end and comprising an upper surface spaced apart from a lower surface;
a plurality of ridges disposed between the first end and the second end of the base and extending upward from the upper surface of the base, the plurality of ridges defining a support surface, each ridge of the plurality of ridges comprising a plurality of through-holes extending between the support surface and the lower surface of the base;
and a plurality of grooves disposed between the first end and the second end of the base and extending downward from the support surface to the upper surface of the base, each groove of the plurality of grooves comprising a plurality of through-holes extending between the upper surface and the lower surface of the base, wherein each groove of the plurality of grooves is adjacent to a ridge of the plurality of ridges, wherein, when the lifting apparatus is in the vertical configuration, the plurality of support prongs are received within the plurality of grooves of the support tray and positioned below the support surface of the plurality of ridges.
In MPEP 2115, in this case, Terrill teaches a system for handling objects, not limiting to green ceramic monoliths as stated in the claim. Inclusion of the green ceramic monolith worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to this claim.
Regarding claim 11:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of grooves of the support tray have a groove height HG and the plurality of support prongs of the lifting apparatus have a prong height HP, wherein the groove height HG is greater than the prong height HP.
Regarding claim 12:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of grooves of the support tray have a groove width WG and the plurality of support prongs of the lifting apparatus have a prong width WP, wherein the groove width WG is greater than the prong width WP.
Regarding claim 14:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 10, further comprising a receiving cradle (33) formed in the body of the lifting apparatus, the receiving cradle configured to receive the object.
Regarding claim 15:
Terrill et al. teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of ridges and the plurality of grooves extend across a width of the support tray and are oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrill et al. (US 20250038021) in view Lipp et al. (US 5406058).
Regarding claim 5:
Terrill et al. and Fitzgerald et al. disclose the system of claim 1.
Terrill et al. don’t disclose the support tray comprises a ceramic material.
On the other hand, Lipp et al. teach the support tray (20) comprises a ceramic material (17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terrill et al. in view of Lipp et al. to include the tray comprises a ceramic material. Doing so would enable better durability and heat resistance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrill et al. (US 2808157).
Regarding claim 13:
Terrill et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the system of claim 10, further comprising a clearance of greater than or equal to 0.020 inches (0.508 mm) to less than or equal to 0.040 inches (1.016 mm) between each side of the plurality of support prongs and each side of the plurality of grooves when the lifting apparatus is in the vertical configuration and the plurality of support prongs are received within the plurality of grooves.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time of filing have the system of claim 10, further comprising a clearance of greater than or equal to 0.020 inches (0.508 mm) to less than or equal to 0.040 inches (1.016 mm) between each side of the plurality of support prongs and each side of the plurality of grooves when the lifting apparatus is in the vertical configuration and the plurality of support prongs are received within the plurality of grooves, 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). Doing so would enable easier transfer of loads during processing.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrill et al. (US 2808157) in view Kitagawa et al. (US 4439929).
Regarding claim 7:
Terrill et al. and Kitagawa et al. disclose the system of claim 1.
Terrill et al. don’t disclose the system wherein the plurality of ridges and the plurality of grooves extend across a length of the support tray and are oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
On the other hand, Kitagawa et al. teach the system wherein the plurality of ridges (p) and the plurality of grooves (d) extend across a length of the support tray (2) and are oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terrill et al. in view of Kitagawa et al. to have the support tray with grooves and ridges oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray. Doing so would enable different process lines for object handling.
Regarding claim 16:
Terrill et al. and Kitagawa et al. disclose the system of claim 10.
Terrill et al. don’t disclose the system wherein the plurality of ridges and the plurality of grooves extend across a length of the support tray and are oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
On the other hand, Kitagawa et al. teach the system wherein the plurality of ridges and the plurality of grooves extend across a length of the support tray and are oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terrill et al. in view of Kitagawa et al. to have the support tray with grooves and ridges oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the support tray. Doing so would enable different process lines for object handling.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 4439929) in view Terrill et al. (US 2808157).
Regarding claim 17:
Kitagawa et al. disclose a method for conveying a green ceramic monolith (5).
Kitagawa et al. don’t disclose the method comprising:
receiving the green ceramic monolith on a lifting apparatus, the lifting apparatus comprising a body, at least two support prongs extending from the body, and an actuator coupled to the body, the at least two support prongs configured to support the green ceramic monolith thereon;
aligning a support tray with the lifting apparatus, the support tray comprising a base, a plurality of ridges extending upward from the base to define a support surface, and a plurality of grooves, wherein each groove of the plurality of grooves is spaced apart from an adjacent groove by one of the plurality of ridges;
engaging the at least two support prongs of the body of the lifting apparatus with the plurality of grooves of the support tray such that the green ceramic monolith is supported on the support surface of the support tray;
and conveying the green ceramic monolith on the support tray for further processing.
On the other hand, Terrill et al. teach the method comprising:
receiving the object on a lifting apparatus, the lifting apparatus comprising a body, at least two support prongs extending from the body, and an actuator coupled to the body, the at least two support prongs configured to support the object thereon;
aligning a support tray with the lifting apparatus, the support tray comprising a base, a plurality of ridges extending upward from the base to define a support surface, and a plurality of grooves, wherein each groove of the plurality of grooves is spaced apart from an adjacent groove by one of the plurality of ridges;
engaging the at least two support prongs of the body of the lifting apparatus with the plurality of grooves of the support tray such that the object is supported on the support surface of the support tray;
and conveying the object on the support tray for further processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa et al. in view of Terrill et al. to have the method for conveying the green ceramic monolith. Doing so would enable more efficient transfer for the green ceramic monolith.
Regarding claim 18:
Kitagawa et al. and Terrill et al. disclose the method of claim 17.
Kitagawa et al. don’t disclose the method of claim 17, wherein: the green ceramic monolith is received on the lifting apparatus in a non-vertical orientation; and the engaging comprises manipulating the body of the lifting apparatus with the actuator to reorient the green ceramic monolith from the non-vertical orientation to a vertical orientation.
On the other hand, Terrill et al. teach the method of claim 17, wherein: the object is received on the lifting apparatus in a non-vertical orientation; and the engaging comprises manipulating the body of the lifting apparatus with the actuator to reorient the object from the non-vertical orientation to a vertical orientation. Terrill et al. has column structure with its lower end pivotally connected to the truck and is movable by power to an inclined position to facilitate load handling (col 4 lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Terrill et al. in view of Kitagawa et al. to include the green ceramic monolith receiving on the lifting apparatus in a non-vertical orientation with the column structure (31) on its lower end pivotally connected to the truck and is movable by power to an inclined position. Doing so would facilitate load handling.
Regarding claim 19:
Kitagawa et al. and Terrill et al. disclose the method of claim 17.
Kitagawa et al. don’t disclose the method of claim 17 wherein the conveying disengages the at least two support prongs of the body of the lifting apparatus from the plurality of grooves of the support tray.
On the other hand, Terrill et al. teach the method of claim 17 wherein the conveying disengages the at least two support prongs of the body of the lifting apparatus from the plurality of grooves of the support tray.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kitagawa et al. in view of Terrill et al. to include the lifting apparatus disengages with at least two support prongs during conveying. Doing so would enable green ceramic monolith to be secured and transferred more effectively at the right moments in processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fitzgerald et al. (US 3136354) and Knopp et al. (US 20200087072) disclose other configurations for the system of lifting apparatus and trays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIA AHADI whose telephone number is (571)270-3145. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-430pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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 RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ELIA AHADI/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights