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 March 19, 2025 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on March 19, 2025. 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring-loaded fasteners and longitudinal ribs separated by valleys must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-3, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney et al. (US Pub 20220009719 A1) in view of Fourney (USPN 7926647).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Fourney et al. (US Pub 20220009719 A1) teaches a dynamic gapping conveyor, comprising: a frame (110) forming a carryway for a conveying surface [Para. 26]; a conveying surface (122) extending in a conveying direction from a first end to a second end and laterally from a first side edge to a second side edge; a first flight (160) having a rotatable panel (body portion 161) extending laterally across the conveying surface for catching a front of a parcel [Para. 32, “portion 161 can push an object on the conveying surface forward or backward”], the first flight connected to a first mover (133) of a linear transport system; and a second flight (160) having a horizontal panel (body portion 161 extends horizontally over the conveying surface), the second flight connected to a second mover (133) of the linear transport system. Fourney (USPN 7926647) teaches a conveyor having a first flight (2106b) engaging a front of a parcel (see Figure 27) and a second flight (2106a) below the parcel (see Figure 24). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the second flight to support the parcel from below to allow the parcel to move over the second flight to control the spacing of the parcels.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the first flight includes a first cam follower (175) on a first end, and the frame includes a first track (117) for engaging the first cam follower to selectively rotate the rotatable panel to a vertical position.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the first flight comprises a hinge rod (164) connected to the rotatable panel, the hinge rod extending through a bearing support (180) mounted to the first mover, and the cam follower extends from an end of the hinge rod (see Figure 6).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Fourney et al. teaches a linear transport system comprising an endless rail (132) extending along a first side edge of the conveying surface and a plurality of movers (133), the endless rail housing a plurality of inducers [Para. 31, “inducers”] that interact with the movers to move the movers along the endless rail.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the conveying surface comprises a raised rib conveyor belt having a series of longitudinal ribs (formed by surfaces of rollers 124) separated by valleys (spaces between rollers).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourney et al. in view of Fourney as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wessels et al. (US Pub 20120298657 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the bearing support is movably mounted to the first mover using fasteners (through base plate 171 and fasteners 172). Fourney et al. fails to teach the fasteners are spring-loaded. Wessels et al. teaches spring-loaded fasteners (40) for mounting two elements for impact resistance [Para. 44, 100, 102]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use spring-loaded fasteners to impart impact resistance to the bearing support.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakey (USPN 5070679) in view of Wessels et al. (US Pub 20120298657 A1)
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Lakey teaches a flight for a dynamic gapping conveyor, comprising: a panel (126) for contacting a parcel; a rod (124) extending from the panel; a cam follower (136) connected to the rod for engaging a track (138) in a frame of the dynamic gapping conveyor; a bearing support housed in a sheath (block 132) for receiving the rod, the bearing support mounted to a mover (chain 94), so that raising the cam follower causes the panel to raise relative to the mover. Lakey fails to teach a plurality of spring-loaded fasteners for mounting the sheath to a mover. Wessels et al. teaches spring-loaded fasteners (40) for mounting two elements for impact resistance [Para. 44, 100, 102]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use spring-loaded fasteners to mount the sheath to the mover to impart impact resistance to the sheath.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the panel is rotatably connected to the bearing support. The panel rotates; therefore, it is rotatably connected.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the cam follower is offset from the rod (as seen in Figure 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 13 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.
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a plurality of longitudinally extending fingers extending from a lateral connecting bar, combined with the rest of the claim language.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 9073703 discloses a dynamic gapping conveyor having flights.
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