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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of December 12, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on December 12, 2024, April 28, 2026 and July 1, 2026. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-5, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (USPN 3840274).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Williams et al. (USPN 3840274) teaches a conveyance device which conveys a part by air, the device comprising: a conveying tube (10) including a first end portion (at 12) and a second end portion (left end of tube 10 in Figure 1), through which the part is conveyed from the first end portion to the second end portion; and a control unit (valve 66 and module 68). The language “which controls supply of the air supplied from the first end portion and stopping of the supply of the air, and stops the supply of the air at least once while the part is being conveyed” is not considered to limit the structure of the device as the language recites the manner in which the device is operated. See MPEP 2114. The language “control unit” is broad language that does not require a specific structure. However, Williams et al. does disclose controlling and stopping the supply of air [Col. 3:43-55, “valve 66 supplies a pulse of compressed air”]. A pulse implies that the supply of air is stopped at the end of the pulse.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the claim language is directed to the manner of operating the device, which does not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114. The control unit is not recited as being configured to perform the function.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the claim language is directed to the manner of operating the device, which does not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114. The control unit is not recited as being configured to perform the function.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the claim language is directed to the manner of operating the device, which does not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114. The control unit is not recited as being configured to perform the function.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the claim language is directed to the manner of operating the device, which does not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114. The recitation of the air pressure does not limit the structure of the device.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the claim language is directed to the manner of operating the device, which does not limit the structure of the device. See MPEP 2114. The control unit is not recited as being configured to perform the function.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Williams et al. teaches a conveyance method for conveying a part by air, the method comprising: controlling supply of the air to be supplied to a conveying tube (tube 10) through which the part is conveyed and stopping of the supply of the air, wherein the controlling comprising stopping the supply of the air at least once while the part is being conveyed through the conveying tube. Williams et al. discloses controlling and stopping the supply of air [Col. 3:43-55, “valve 66 supplies a pulse of compressed air”]. A pulse implies that the supply of air is stopped at the end of the pulse.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takazawa (USPN 6368026).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, and teaches an air pipe (56), yet fails to teach a table connected to the conveying tube and including a pocket in which the part is to be placed; and an air pipe connected to the table, which supply the air to the conveying tube via the pocket. Takazawa teaches a table (rotating disk 24) connected to a conveying tube (54) and including a pocket (spherical body accommodating means 28, disclosed as a recess) in which a part (spherical body 26) is to be placed; and an air pipe (72) connected to the table, which supply air to the conveying tube via the pocket (see Figure 3). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a table including a pocket to feed parts since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The table would provide parts to the conveying tube one part at a time.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Williams et al. teaches the control unit includes a regulation portion (valve 66) installed in an air pipe, which switches between the supply of the air to be supplied to the conveying tube and stopping of the supply.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. in view of Takazawa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Arena (USPN 4720215).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a nozzle provided at the second end portion and having an inner diameter that reduces toward a distal end which ejects the part. Arena teaches a conveying tube (18) having a nozzle (92) having an inner diameter that reduces toward a distal end in order to properly position a part (rivet 34) [Col. 5:60-63]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nozzle having an inner diameter that reduces toward a distal end in order to properly position a part.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the controlling comprising stopping the supply of the air so that the number of times of the supply of the air is greater than the number of times of the stopping of the supply of the air while the part is being conveyed. However, Williams et al. discloses [Col. 4:1-13] pulse durations and discloses the duration of the pulse and the pressure of the pulse is variable depending upon factors such as size and length of the tube, the weight of the article and the distance the article is to be transported. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control the number of times air is supplied and the number of times air is stopped as engineering expedient in order to move a part along a conveying tube. If the number of time of the supply of the air is greater than the number of times of the stopping of the supply of air, the part would be acted on by the supply of air more often than not being acted upon during stopping of the supply.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach stopping the supply of the air so that a period of the supply of the air per one time and a time for the stopping of the supply of the air per one time become equal to each other. However, Williams et al. discloses [Col. 4:1-13] pulse durations and discloses the duration of the pulse and pressure of the pulse is variable depending upon factors such as size and length of the tube, the weight of the article and the distance the article is to be transported. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the durations of period of supply of air and duration of stopping of the supply of air as engineering to control the movement of the part in the conveying tube.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach stopping the supply of the air so that a period of the supply of the air per one time is shorter than a period of the stopping of the supply of the air per one time. However, Williams et al. discloses [Col. 4:1-13] pulse durations and discloses the duration of the pulse and the pressure of the pulse is variable depending upon factors such as size and length of the tube, the weight of the article and the distance the article is to be transported. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to stop the supply of air so that that a period of the supply of the air per one time is shorter than a period of the stopping of the supply of the air per one time as engineering expedient to move a part along the conveying tube.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Williams et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach supplying the air at such intervals that a residual pressure of the air in the conveying tube does not become zero. However, Williams et al. discloses [Col. 4:1-13] pulse durations and discloses the duration of the pulse and the pressure of the pulse is variable depending upon factors such as size and length of the tube, the weight of the article and the distance the article is to be transported. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to supply the air at such intervals that a residual pressure of the air in the conveying tube does not become zero in order to move the part through the conveying tube. A zero residual pressure would result in stoppage of the part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 3382010 discloses propelling articles using pulses of air. USPN 6454495 discloses propelling articles using pulses of air.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights