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, see Remarks, filed 20260721, with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The part of the rejection of claim 1 based on 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 20260721, with respect to claims 1, 4 and 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the examiner posits that claim 1 is slightly ambiguous in that it can be read either as the second track and the first track are “laterally adjacent” or that the “transfer region” of the second track is laterally adjacent to the first track. Under the latter interpretation of the “transfer region” being laterally adjacent to the first track the rejection over King is correct and maintained.
Applicants’ Remarks promote the latter position that the “transfer region” means where the first track and the second track are coextensive and that King does not show this limitation, see pg. 2, first full paragraph, last sentence, “The tracks in King are not arranged in a side-by-side, laterally adjacent configuration in which a transfer region exists between two parallel, laterally opposite tracks as contemplated by the present claims.” However even under this interpretation the claim is not novel, and therefore is not allowable, because the prior art also shows that interpretation of the claim structure. See U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,027 and U.S. Pat. No. 10622921, both to Weber et al.
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)(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, 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP2897835 to King, et al.
With respect to claim 1, King discloses a linear motor conveyor system comprising:
a moving element (see numeral 13 in Fig. 1 and [0061], first sentence) comprising at least one magnetic element (see magnets 33, 34 in Fig. 3 and [0036], lines 50-53; also see Fig. 5, para. [0045], first sentence) and at least one bearing (see col. 17, lines 6-10);
a first track (see numeral 61 in Fig. 6) comprising a first linear motor (see numeral 62, 64 in Fig. 6 and lines 23-30),
the first track (61) configured to have a first rail (see numeral 12 in Fig. 1 and [0028]) on which the at least one bearing of the moving element runs (see [0079] in toto) and
the first linear motor (62,64) is configured to generate a dynamic magnetic field which acts on the magnetic element (see [0046], which states the currents in the coils control each vehicle; and each vehicle use bearings ([0029], last two sentences);
a second track having at least a transfer region positioned adjacent the first track, the second track configured to have a second rail on which the same at least one bearing runs while in the transfer region (see annotated Fig. 11, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
399
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and see para. [0079], and col. 17, lines 3-10, wherein the running surfaces that form part of the vehicle 13 run over guideway surfaces and more particularly those surfaces on the rail 12 and those running surfaces on the vehicle include bearings).
With respect to claim 4, King teaches wherein the moving element further comprises at least one cover for the magnetic element to shield the magnetic field on at least one side of the moving element (see numeral 43 in Fig. 4 and para. [0044], last sentence).
With respect to claim 5, King teaches wherein the magnetic element comprises a first magnetic element on a first side of the moving element and a second magnetic element on a second side, opposite to the first side (see annotated Fig. 3 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
561
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, King teaches wherein the moving element further comprises a stabilizer configured to reduce rotation of the moving element (see [0037], lines 46-48 and annotated Fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image3.png
263
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-7 and 9 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights