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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not provide structural claim limitations to the amended claims to overcome the prior art rejection for claims 1 and 12. Regarding claim 23, Applicant does not distinguish itself with precise language to the method to overcome the cited prior art. Taguchi teaches photelectric switches to monitor the position along the conveyor and therefore along the receiving surface of P of the carrier P.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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, 4-9, 12, 15-17, 20, 23, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima JP 2009035407A in view of Taguchi Japanese Patent No. 2003104513A.
Claim 1, Fukushima teaches an object processing system Fig. 1 Abstract comprising: a carrier 6 for receiving an object W on a receiving surface of 6 thereof, said receiving surface of 6 being adapted to move the object W thereon in at least one transfer direction of 7, a horizontal translation system 3,14 Fig. 2 for moving the carrier 6 in a horizontal direction of 3 that is generally orthogonal to the transfer direction of 7, a vertical translation system 4 for moving the carrier 6 in a vertical direction P0014, and a payload stability system A2 including a plurality of emitters that each emit a detectable field over a portion of the receiving surface, and a plurality of receivers for receiving the detectable field from each of the plurality of emitters and providing a plurality of detection signals of A1-A3, said payload stability system A2 providing payload stability information responsive to the plurality of detection signals of A1-A3 P0021, but does not teach as Taguchi teaches said payload stability information 63 including data representative via 59 of whether the object F is moving with respect to the carrier P.
Claims 4, 15, and 26, Fukushima teaches the carrier 6 is fed from an infeed conveyor at P P0037. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 5, 16, and 27, Fukushima does not teach as Taguchi teaches the payload stability information via 79 includes information regarding whether the object F is rolling via E1on the receiving surface of P of the carrier P Fig. 9 P0081. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 6, 17, and 28, Fukushima does not teach as Taguchi teaches the payload stability information via 79 includes information regarding whether the object F thereon is bouncing on the receiving surface of P of the carrier P Fig. 9 P0081. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 7 and 29, Fukushima does not teach as Taguchi teaches the payload stability information via 79 includes information regarding whether the object F thereon is too close to either side of the receiving surface of P of the carrier P Fig. 9 P0081. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 8 and 30, Fukushima does not teach as Taguchi teaches the receiving surface of P of the carrier P is adapted to move responsive to the payload stability information via 79 when the non-centered object F is too close to a side of the receiving surface to bring the object toward a center of the receiving surface of 6 of the carrier 6 P0080. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 9, 20, and 31, Fukushima does not teach as Taguchi teaches the payload stability information via 79 includes information regarding whether the object F thereon is too close to either end of the receiving surface of P of the carrier P P0080. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 12, Fukushima teaches a carrier 6 for use in an object processing system Fig. 1, said carrier 6 comprising: a receiving surface of 6 for receiving an object W thereon, said receiving surface of 6 being adapted to move via 7 the object W thereon in at least one transfer direction of 7, a mounting 14 adapted to be engaged by each of a horizontal translation system 3 for moving the carrier 6 in a horizontal direction and a vertical translation system 4 for moving the carrier 6 in a vertical direction P0014, and a payload stability system A2 including a plurality of emitters A1 to A3 that each emit a detectable field over a portion of the receiving surface, and a plurality of receivers for receiving the detectable field from each of the plurality of emitters and providing a plurality of detection signals, said payload stability system providing payload stability information responsive to the plurality of detection signals of A1 to A3 P0021, but does not teach as Taguchi teaches wherein the receiving surface of 6 of the carrier of 6 is adapted to move responsive to the payload stability information 63 when the object 6 is too close to a side of the receiving surface of 6 to bring the object F toward a center of the receiving surface of P of the carrier P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 23, Fukushima teaches a method of processing objects W Abstract comprising: receiving an object W on a receiving surface of a carrier 6, said receiving surface of 6 being adapted to move the object W thereon in at least one transfer direction via 7, moving the carrier 6 in a horizontal direction at 3 that is generally orthogonal to the transfer direction via 7, moving the carrier 6 in a vertical direction via 4 P0014, emitting a plurality of detectable fields from a plurality of emitters that emit each of the plurality of detectable fields over a portion of the receiving surface of 6; receiving the plurality of detectable fields from the plurality of emitters at a plurality of receivers; and providing payload stability information responsive to the plurality of detection signals via A1 to A3 P0021, but does not teach as Taguchi teaches engaging the carrier P responsive to the payload stability informatin 63 when the object F is too close to an end of the receiving surface of P to bring the object toward a center of the receiving surface of 6 of the carrier P. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the switch configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim(s) 2-3, 13-14, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima JP 2009035407A in view of Taguchi Japanese Patent No. 2003104513A in view of Wagner U.S. Patent No. 11,055,504.
Claims 2, 13, and 24, Fukushima does not teach as Wagner teaches the receiving surface 70 includes a cleated conveyor for facilitating transfer of the object 34 off of the carrier in the transfer direction C8 L30-45. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the conveyor configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claims 3, 14 and 25, Fukushima does not teach as Wagner teaches the transfer direction of 12 is one of two mutually opposing directions in which the object 34 is transferable by the cleated conveyor 70 Fig. 9 C8 L30-45. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Fukushima with the conveyor configuration taught in Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success because
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 21-22, and 32-33 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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