Final Rejection
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 limitations “mechanical drive assembly” as recited in claim 10 line 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the limitations “wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path” as recited in claim 1 line 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Similar issue in claim 9.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path” in lines 11 and 12. It is unclear as what is transversely along an ejection path. As shown in applicant Figure 2, the ejector means 25 comprising finger 3 moves along a row 23 housing articles 1, the finger 3 moves along the length of the row 23 and the articles at the front of row 23 are ejected in the same direction of the movement of the finger 3 along the length of the belt 260. Thus, the ejector finger does not eject articles transversely along an ejection path as recited. Appropriate clarifications are required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Therrien (US 9,415,950) in view of Millies (US 3,757,997).
Referring to claim 1. Therrien discloses an ejector finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C), comprising:
a body (40; Figure 4) provided with a base (60) and, on an opposite side of the body from the base, a distal end (top of 40);
said distal end (top end of 40) comprising a front face (front of 40) for coming into contact with one of said closure elements (article C) to be ejected,
wherein
the distal end (top end of 40) comprises an insert (59b; Figure 5b) provided with at least one front surface (front face of 59b) sized so as at least partially cover said front face (front of 40)
wherein the ejector finger (as shown in Figure 4) is configured to eject the closure elements (article C) transversely along an ejection path (as shown in Figure 1, container C is pushed off the drive belt at the end of the belt as the finger moves downwards around the end of the belt as the container is pushed transversely off the belt).
Therrien does not disclose wherein said body is made of a composite material, in particular of plastic material, whereas said insert is made of metal, in particular of stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the body made of a composite material, in particular of plastic material, whereas said insert is made of metal, in particular of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therrien further does not disclose wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path.
Millies discloses an articles dispenser (Figure 2) wherein an ejector finger (15) is configured to eject the articles transversely along an ejection path (see Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Therrien to include wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path as taught by Millies because the articles can be ejected away from the footprint to the dispenser thus allowing for an easier retrieval of the articles.
Referring to claim 2. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
further comprising a core (58; Figure 4) extending at least in part inside said distal end (inside the top end of 40; see Figure 4) wherein the core (58; Figure 4) in configured to fix (opening aperture in 59b as shown in Figure 5b and 5c allow member 58 to be inserted within member 59b) at least said front face (front of 40) with the front surface (front face of 59b).
Referring to claim 3. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said core (58; Figure 4) comprises at least one orifice (for screws to mount members 59a/b) situated inside said distal end (mounted in the housing).
Referring to claim 4. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said orifice (for screws to mount members 59a/b) is a through-orifice (see office for member 58; Figure 4).
Referring to claim 5. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said insert (59b; Figure 5b) comprises a rear surface (back surface of 59b), said front surface (front surface of 59b) and said rear surface (back surface of 59b) being connected by said core (58; Figure 4).
Referring to claims 6 and 15-17. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said insert (59b; Figure 5b) comprises at least one rounded edge (see opening for screws; Figure 5c).
Referring to claims 7,18 and19. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
further comprising at least one chamfer (see corners of 40; Figure 5a) reentrant from said base (60) to said distal end (top end of 40).
Referring to claim 20. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said body (40; Figure 4) is made of a composite material, in particular of plastic material, whereas said insert is made of metal, in particular of stainless steel (aluminum, it is understood that other suitable materials could be used as well).
Referring to claims 13 and 14. Therrien discloses a finger (as shown in Figure 4) for ejecting closure elements (article C),
wherein said insert (59b; Figure 5b) comprises a rear surface (rear surface of 59b), said front surface (front surface of 59b) and said rear surface being connected by said core (58; Figure 4).
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.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Therrien (US 9,415,950) in view of Millies (US 3,757,997) and further in view of Furst (US 3,447,707).
Referring to claim 9. See claim rejection of claim 1 above. Therrien in view of Millies do not disclose an elevator conveyor in the form of a belt provided with an ascending run penetrating said storage volume.
Furst discloses a device (Figure 1) for supplying sorted closure elements (articles), comprising:
a volume (1) for bulk storage of said closure elements (articles);
an elevator conveyor (belt 2a) in the form of a belt provided with an ascending run penetrating said storage volume (20);
said elevator conveyor (2) comprising on its exterior face a plurality of cleats (2a) oriented transversely relative to said belt (2) and spaced in such a manner as to determine a housing (space 2a) between two adjacent cleats (each projecting fingers on 2), each housing (space 2a) taking up a plurality of said closure elements (articles) during its passage inside said storage volume (1);
at least one ejector finger (4 or 40 in Therrien) positioned for ejecting the closure elements (articles) present in each housing (space 2a) on reaching the upper part of said elevator conveyor (2)
wherein the ejector finger (as shown in Figure 4) is configured to eject the closure elements (article) transversely along an ejection path (as shown in Figure 1, coil is pushed off the drive belt at the top end of the belt as the finger moves around and downwards the end of the belt as the coil is pushed transversely off the belt)
path parallel (movement parallel to the moving fingers) to the cleats by contacting a first closure in a row of closures touching one another.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Therrien in view of Millies to include an elevator conveyor in the form of a belt provided with an ascending run penetrating said storage volume as taught by Furst because an ejection finger can be combined with a dispenser apparatus thus increasing potential demand for the ejection finger and increase sales of the ejection finger.
Therrien in view of Millies and Furst do not specifically ejection path parallel to the cleats by contacting a first closure in a row of closures touching one another.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Therrien in view of Millies and Furst to include a plurality of articles stacked in a row wherein in a single ejector finger is configured to drive the plurality of articles in a roll parallel to the drive belt thus allowing each single ejector finger to drive a plurality of articles whereby reducing the number of ejector finger required for dispensing
Referring to claim 10. Furst discloses a device (Figure 1) for supplying sorted closure elements (articles), comprising:
a mechanical drive assembly (motor) for moving said at least one ejector finger (4), said mechanical drive assembly (motor) comprising a belt (4) supporting the base (holders on 4) of said at least one ejector finger (holders on 4).
Referring to claims 11 and 12. Therrien in view of Millies and Furst do not specifically disclose a method of manufacturing an ejector finger as claimed in claim 1 by molding or by addition of material.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Therrien in view of Millies and Furst to include the manufacturing an ejector finger by molding or by addition of material because such manufacturing method is well within the skill of an artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
See modified rejections cited above wherein the newly amended claims 1 includes the newly added limitations “said body is made of a composite material, in particular of plastic material, whereas said insert is made of metal, in particular of stainless steel” in view of Therrien and further the limitations “wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path” are disclose by the new reference of Millies.
Applicant argues “the mechanical drive assembly for moving said at least one finger, said mechanical drive assembly comprising a belt supporting the base of said at least one finger is represented by element 26, which is shown at least in Figure 2 and described at least at page 4, lines 23-25 and page 8, lines 5-8 of the specification as filed. The term, previously described as a "movement means," was subject to a 112 rejection.” as recited in claim 10 is disclosed in the specifications and the drawings. In view of the Examiner the specifications do not recite any specific structural element as a "mechanical drive assembly” furthermore, the member element “26” as shown in the drawings is disclosed as a “driving means” and as s “movement means.”
Applicant argues the elements objected in the drawings are disclosed in the drawings and provides support relied upon in the specifications. However, in view of the Examiner the drawing objections to the “mechanical drive assembly” are not overcome because the element number “26” indicated as “mechanical drive assembly” by the applicant is disclosed in the specifications is as “a driving means” and “movement means.” Thus, the disclosure in the specification does not disclose the “mechanical drive assembly” as member element 26. Corrections are required.
Similarly the drawings objection regarding “wherein the ejector finger is configured to eject the closure elements transversely along an ejection path” is not disclosed because no specific direction of movement that can be referred to as a transversely along an ejection path is shown and further no references is provided as to what is the path transversely along an ejection path. Corrections are required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights