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.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linke et al. (WO 2013/156177).
Linke et al. show a linear motor conveyor system having at least one track section, a first guide rail 2 having opposed angled profiles (see Figure 4), at least one moving element 4 which has a body and at least one set of bearings 18, 24 attached to the body which are oppositely angled and abut against opposing angled profiles.
Re claim 11, flat contact is best shown in Figure 4.
Re claim 12, Figures 3 and 4 show a V formation and a reverse V formation.
Re claim 13, the magnetic drive system holds the bearings on the rail.
Re claim 14, shown are two sets of bearings which abut against the guide rail on a same side of the moving element.
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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linke et al. in view of Tyrrell (GB 1,393,268).
Not disclosed by Linke et al. is the use of a dry lubricant. However, disclosed by Tyrrell is the use of a dry lubricant. To use such on Linke et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it would help to reduce friction and extend the life of the system.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17 and 18 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-18 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'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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R BIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6910. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 to 4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JAMES R BIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 09/29/2026
