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 Amendment
Amendment filed 4/1/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 44, 46-56, 58-61 and 63 are pending. Claims 1-43, 45, 57 and 62 are cancelled. Claims 44, 46, 58, 60 and 61 are amended. No new matter is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the disclosure of Dvorak, as this relates to the entirely different field of transferring eggs. The claims explicitly relate to consumable unit manufacturing systems, which has different requirements to the egg transfer industry.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Dvorak is related to the flipping of individual consumable units (e.g., eggs) that are placed in a tray. The claims are also directed to placing individual consumable units in a tray and flipping said tray.
JACKSON et al. is also directed to flipping trays holding a plurality of individual units. Each reference is directed to the holding of individual articles within a tray, and manipulating the tray in an apparatus that’s designed to move the trays. The individual units within the trays do not necessarily affect the movements and handling of the trays, per se. Thus, the art is analogous.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, DVORAK and JACKSON et al. are directed to rotating trays holding individual units, while also protecting the units. Thus, the motivation to combine references is found in the desire to protect the units within the trays.
Applicant argues that Dvorak is not disclosing mere transfer of eggs, but also involves co-mingling of eggs so they are loose in the second tray.
DVORAK is not cited for the types of trays used. Thus, the exact structural details of the trays in DVORAK is ultimately immaterial to the rejection. The housing for protection and the slot in the housing are the structures in DVORAK that are used to modify the rejection.
Applicant argues that LIN and Jackson do not disclose a drum being present for rotating trays.
Examiner notes that JACKSON et al. does disclose the use of a rotating mechanism (Figures 4 and 5; Column 3, lines 55-68). Thus, the inclusion of a drum type rotating mechanism in DVORAK would be considered as a rotating mechanism by one of ordinary skill in the art for protection purposes of the items in the trays.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 44, 46-53, 56, 58-61 and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN et al. (CN 109205297 A, machine translation) in view of JACKSON et al. (US 6,139,243) and DVORAK (US 4,344,730)
With respect to claims 44 and 63, LIN et al. discloses a consumable unit manufacturing system comprising a consumable unit manufacturing device (Paragraph [0002]), such as an assembly line, and a machine cassette (item 6, figure 5; Paragraph [0014]) to receive pods, 7, (Figure 5; Paragraph [0014]) each of which forms part of a consumable unit for use with an inhalation device (Abstract; Paragraph [0014]) (e.g. these parts can be used and thrown away when done with them). The system comprises a transfer station for pods (Figures 1 and 9; Paragraphs [0014]-[0019]).
LIN et al. does not explicitly disclose the transfer station being configured to rotate the combined trays and cassette. JACKSON et al. disclose an apparatus for flipping a tray of parts from a first tray to a second tray (Abstract) comprising a transfer station, 20, (Column 3, lines 35-50) to receive the first tray, 12, and a second tray, 12’, (Column 3, lines 15-50) that is placed over the first. The parts within the first tray are transferred into corresponding pockets in the second tray (Column 3, lines 39-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transfer the parts of LIN et al., from one tray to the other, in the manner taught by JACKSON et al. so that the parts can be inverted and transferred without damaging the parts being transferred (Column 2, lines 20-55).
JACKSON et al. discloses a receiving station adjacent to the transfer station and configured to receive a first tray of parts such that, when a second tray has been placed over the first tray, the combined trays are insertable form the receiving station into the transfer station (Column 4, lines 25-60).
LIN et al. discloses that the stacked structure is slid longitudinally (Paragraphs [0014-0019]).
Moreover, steps of placing; inserting and operating are recited as being performed by LIN et al. and JACKSON et al. . Thus, it would have been obvious to perform each and every operation described by LIN et al. and JACKSON et al. when using the structures of the apparatus.
JACKSON et al. discloses that the transfer station comprises a cradle to receive the first and second trays (item 36; Figure 4) and the cradle is mounted for rotation (Column 3, lines 60-65) implicitly about an axis, 78 and 80 (Figure 6; Column 4, lines 30-68; Column 5, lines 1-20)
LIN et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cradle is surrounded by an enclosure. DVORAK discloses an apparatus for transferring from a first tray to a second tray (Abstract). The apparatus comprising a transfer station, A, (Figure 1) to receive the first tray with the second tray placed over the first tray to rotate the combined trays to transfer the components thereof from the first to the second tray (Column 2, lines 10-45); The transfer station comprising a cradle, C, (Column 2, lines 40-50; Figure 6) and mounted for rotation about an axis, and that the cradle is surrounded by an enclosure in the form of a drum , B, (Figure 1) that rotates together with the cradle (Column 5, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the enclosure of DVORAK to encompass the trays of LIN et al. so as to encompass and protect the rotating components.
DVORAK discloses a slot, 45, for the assembly to be placed (Column 3, lines 15-50).
With respect to claim 46, JACKSON et al. discloses that the transfer station comprises a cradle to receive the first and second trays (item 36; Figure 4) and the cradle is mounted for rotation (Column 3, lines 60-65) implicitly about an axis, 78 and 80 (Figure 6; Column 4, lines 30-68; Column 5, lines 1-20)
With respect to claims 47-49 and 52, JACKSON et al. discloses that the cradle is configured to rotate about axis (implicitly an axis represented by 40 and 42 ; Figure 4), in which the cassette is placed on it and in the cradle, then rotating the two trays together 180 degrees. The bottom tray is released, while the top is rotated back 180 degrees (Column 4, lines 10-60).
With respect to claims 50 and 51, JACKSON et al. discloses that the cradle comprises more than one support plates, 50, (Figures 4 and 5) that are configured so that the trays of pods have the cassettes placed thereon is insertable into the transfer station in the first position (Colum 4, lines 10-60). Once in the first position, this structure is then rotated about the axis to the second position. The tray and cassette are not separated until after rotation.
With respect to claims 53 and 56, JACKSON et al. discloses that the drive motor rotates the cradle about the axis (Column 4, lines 1-3).
With respect to claims 58-59, modified LIN et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cradle is surrounded by an enclosure. DVORAK discloses an apparatus for transferring from a first tray to a second tray (Abstract). The apparatus comprising a transfer station, A, (Figure 1) to receive the first tray with the second tray placed over the first tray to rotate the combined trays to transfer the components thereof from the first to the second tray (Column 2, lines 10-45); The transfer station comprising a cradle, C, (Column 2, lines 40-50; Figure 6) and mounted for rotation about an axis, and that the cradle is surrounded by an enclosure in the form of a drum , B, (Figure 1) that rotates together with the cradle (Column 5, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the enclosure of DVORAK to encompass the trays of modified LIN et al. so as to encompass and protect the rotating components.
With respect to claims 60 and 61, DVORAK discloses switches that are active to control the rotational position (Column 5, lines 48-68; Column 6, lines 1-23).
_____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 54 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN et al. (CN 109205297 A, machine translation) in view of JACKSON et al. (US 6,139,243) and DVORAK (US 4,344,730) as applied to claims 44, 46-53, 56, 58-61 and 63 above, and further in view of WARD et al. (US 2014/0157583)
With respect to claims 54 and 55, modified LIN et al. discloses that the drive member is a motor (See rejection of claim 12), but does not disclose that the drive member is a hand wheel. WARD et al. discloses that a rotation power source may be a motor, 258, but could also be a hand wheel, 256 (Figures 3 and 6; Paragraphs [0057]-[0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a hand crank wheel in place of the electric motor or modified LIN et al., as taught by WARD et al., so that if a power source isn’t available to rotate the cradle and trays, they can still be rotated by hand.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights