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 .
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 “a device” of claim 15; “driven wheel” of claim 19; “hoist” of claim 21; “casting machines, rolling machines” of claim 27 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites “means for energy recovery configured to store energy released during the transverse transport” is not described in detail.
Claim 25 recites “wherein energy released during transporting the roller table segment is used for transporting the further roller table segment” is not described in detail.
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)(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) 15-18, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura (US 20190300293).
Regarding claim-15. Nishimura discloses a transverse conveyor (12, Fig.3) for transporting heavy loads (3, Fig.3) ([0033]) from a first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Top 6, Fig.3-4) to a second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Bottom 6, Fig.3-4) ([0035]), comprising:
a roller table segment (roller conveyor 12, [0038]) configured to be inserted in a flush manner into the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (See Fig.1-4), and
a device (13, Fig.3-4) for transversely transporting the roller table segment (12) between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (top 6) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 6), wherein the device is configured to overcome a height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table ([0033-0035]).
Regarding claim-16. Nishimura discloses wherein the device (13) is configured to perform a transverse transport (12) and to overcome the height difference in a single, uninterrupted movement in a single direction (See Fig.1-4, [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim-17. Nishimura discloses wherein the height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (top 6) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 6) causes a gradient for a travel path of the roller table segment (12) to be between 10° and 45° (From Fig.1-4, device 13 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves 12 between 6’s seems obvious).
Regarding claim-18. Nishimura discloses wherein the device (13) is in operative connection with two rails (guide members 29A, 29B) to guide the roller table segment (12) (Fig.1-3).
Regarding claim-26. Nishimura discloses wherein the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (top 6) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 6) extend parallel to each other (See Fig.1-3).
Claim(s) 15-20, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vargas (US 10407252).
Regarding claim-15. Vargas discloses A transverse conveyor (C7-8, Fig.1-2) for transporting heavy loads (items, Fig.3-4) from a first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (C1-2, Fig.1-2) to a second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6, Fig.1-2), comprising:
a roller table segment (C7-8) configured to be inserted in a flush manner into the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Fig.1-2), and
a device (30, Fig.3-4) for transversely transporting the roller table segment (C7-8) between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (C1-2, Fig.1-2) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6), Fig.1-2), wherein the device is configured to overcome a height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (From Fig.1-4, device 30 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves C7-8 between C1-2, C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6, seems obvious).
Regarding claim-16. Vargas discloses wherein the device (30) is configured to perform a transverse transport and to overcome the height difference in a single, uninterrupted movement in a single direction (Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim-17. Vargas discloses wherein the height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table causes a gradient for a travel path of the roller table segment to be between 10° and 45° (From Fig.1-4, device 30 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves C7-8 between C1-2, C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6, seems obvious).
Regarding claim-18. Vargas discloses wherein the device is in operative connection with two rails (T1, T2) to guide the roller table segment (Fig.1-4).
Regarding claim-19. Vargas discloses wherein the device has at least one driven wheel (plurality of wheels) for transporting the roller table segment (C7-8) on two rails (T1-2), and wherein a gradient of a travel path of the roller table segment is 1° to 4° (From Fig.1-4, device 30 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves C7-8 between C1-2, C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6, seems obvious).
Regarding claim-20. Vargas discloses wherein the device (30) has at least one driven pinion (cam 42 or wheels) for transporting the roller table segment (C7-8) on at least one toothed rack or at least one drive rack (40 or rails T1-2), wherein a gradient of a travel path of the roller table segment is 4° to 10° (From Fig.1-4, device 30 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves C7-8 between C1-2, C3-4 or C9-10 or C5-6, seems obvious).
Regarding claim-26. Vargas discloses wherein the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table extend parallel to each other (Fig.1-2).
Claim(s) 15-18, 22-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 4867299).
Regarding claim-15. Mizuno discloses A transverse conveyor (5, 6, Fig.1-2) for transporting heavy loads (10) from a first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (top 1, Fig.1-2) to a second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 1, Fig.1-2), comprising:
a roller table segment (Fig.5, 6) configured to be inserted in a flush manner into the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Fig.1-2), and
a device (7, Fig.1-2) for transversely transporting the roller table segment between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table, wherein the device is configured to overcome a height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim-16. Mizuno discloses wherein the device (7) is configured to perform a transverse transport and to overcome the height difference in a single, uninterrupted movement in a single direction (See Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim-17. Mizuno discloses wherein the height difference between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (top 1) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 1) causes a gradient for a travel path of the roller table segment to be between 10° and 45° (From Fig.1-2, device 7 can be arranged at a certain angle which moves 5, 6 between 1’s seems obvious).
Regarding claim-18. Mizuno discloses wherein the device is in operative connection with two rails (one rail/guide) to guide the roller table segment (5, 6) (From Fig.1-2, device 7 can be modified to have 2 rails/guide members which moves 5, 6 between 1’s seems obvious).
Regarding claim-22. Mizuno discloses further comprising a further roller table segment (6), wherein the device (7) is configured to move the roller table segment and the further roller table segment simultaneously (6 and 7 moves simultaneously See Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim-23. Mizuno discloses wherein a third horizontally extending roller conveyor table (See Fig.3, have plurality of 11’s similar to 1’s of Fig.1-2) is arranged between the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table, wherein the third horizontally extending roller conveyor table has a height difference with respect to the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Fig.3-4), wherein the device (7 or 17 or 27) is configured to transport the roller table segment from the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table to the third horizontally extending roller conveyor table and simultaneously transport the further roller table segment from the third horizontally extending roller conveyor table to the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Fig.3-4).
Regarding claim-26. Mizuno discloses wherein the first horizontally extending roller conveyor table (Top 1) and the second horizontally extending roller conveyor table (bottom 1) extend parallel to each other (Fig.1-2).
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) 24-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishimura (US 20190300293).
Regarding claim-24 and 25. Nishimura does not explicitly discloses further comprising means for energy recovery configured to store energy released during the transverse transport; wherein the roller table segment and the further roller table segment are transported simultaneously, and wherein energy released during transporting the roller table segment is used for transporting the further roller table segment. However, it is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the storage or use of energy for transverse conveyors which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Regarding claim-27 and 28. Nishimura does not disclose wherein the transverse conveyor is part of a casting-rolling installation, and wherein the transverse conveyor connects two casting machines to a rolling mill; wherein the heavy loads are slabs, ingots, metal foils, metal sheets, coils of metal material, containers, and/or goods with a weight of at least 5 tons. It is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the transverse conveyors with other machines for further processing which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step. Moreover, it is also just a mere of design and constructional detail in which transverse conveyors are built to carry large and heavier loads which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vargas (US 10407252).
Regarding claim-24 and 25. Vargas does not explicitly discloses further comprising means for energy recovery configured to store energy released during the transverse transport; wherein the roller table segment and the further roller table segment are transported simultaneously, and wherein energy released during transporting the roller table segment is used for transporting the further roller table segment. However, it is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the storage or use of energy for transverse conveyors which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Regarding claim-27 and 28. Vargas does not disclose wherein the transverse conveyor is part of a casting-rolling installation, and wherein the transverse conveyor connects two casting machines to a rolling mill; wherein the heavy loads are slabs, ingots, metal foils, metal sheets, coils of metal material, containers, and/or goods with a weight of at least 5 tons. It is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the transverse conveyors with other machines for further processing which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step. Moreover, it is also just a mere of design and constructional detail in which transverse conveyors are built to carry large and heavier loads which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Claim(s) 24-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mizuno (US 4867299).
Regarding claim-24 and 25. Mizuno does not explicitly discloses further comprising means for energy recovery configured to store energy released during the transverse transport; wherein the roller table segment and the further roller table segment are transported simultaneously, and wherein energy released during transporting the roller table segment is used for transporting the further roller table segment. However, it is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the storage or use of energy for transverse conveyors which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Regarding claim-27 and 28. Mizuno does not disclose wherein the transverse conveyor is part of a casting-rolling installation, and wherein the transverse conveyor connects two casting machines to a rolling mill; wherein the heavy loads are slabs, ingots, metal foils, metal sheets, coils of metal material, containers, and/or goods with a weight of at least 5 tons. It is just a mere of constructional detail of an apparatus in which person skilled in the art could provide the transverse conveyors with other machines for further processing which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step. Moreover, it is also just a mere of design and constructional detail in which transverse conveyors are built to carry large and heavier loads which are well known in the art without involving any inventive step.
Conclusion
Note: Examiner suggest applicant to take a look at Notice of References Cited PTO-892 as there are other multiple prior arts that can be used to reject claims especially independent claim with Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD AWAIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 pm (EST).
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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
