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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 10 and 13-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group A, Claim 4, drawn to a package opening system which comprises - a receptacle toe the sheet lid.
Group B, Claim 10, drawn to a package opening system which comprises - a cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the area of overlap along the annular cutting path while the sheet lid is not sucked and held by the lid holder when the lid holder mover is in the first position, and wherein the cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the other area of overlap along the annular cutting path while the sheet lid is sucked and held by the lid holder when the lid holder mover is in the second position.
Group C, Claims 13-16, drawn to a package opening system which comprises - wherein the lid holder mover includes a first arm supporting the lid holder and extending from above the package to the outside of the package in the top view when the lid holder sucks and holds the sheet lid, wherein the cutter blade mover includes a second arm supporting the cutter blade and extending from above the package to the outside of the package in the top view when the cutter blade cuts the sheet lid.
Group D, Claim 17, drawn to a package opening system which comprises - further comprising a controller, wherein the cutter blade mover, lid holder, and lid holder mover are moved by a control of the controller based on a program.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
a lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Laro in view of Song and Walgo Sherri and Taneja (see claim 1 rejection below).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 10, and 13-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 9-17 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that the lid holder is moved from and to the opening position in the top view " in line 19.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the opening position” in the claim. Because a no opening position of the lid holder has been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. On line 5 an opening position of the cutter blade is delimited. This is different from an opening position of a lid holder. If the opening position of a lid holder is newly introduced structure/functionality than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claims 2, 4 and 9-17 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-2, 4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120060761, Laro, in view of USPGPUB 20200114436 , Song, and US 2296073, Walgo, and in view of USPN 6739061, Sherri and USPN 9877462, Taneja.
Regarding Claim 1, Laro discloses a package opening system 10 configured to open a package (par 0026 and 0032) the package comprising:
a tub storing a stored object and having a flange-shaped opening; and a sheet lid closing the flange-shaped opening with an outer peripheral edge of the sheet lid being bonded to the flange-shaped opening (since the cutter of par 0028 is made to cut into a pet food can, which is a tub storing a food object and having a flange-shaped opening; and a sheet lid closing the flange-shaped opening with an outer peripheral edge of the lid being connected to the flange shaped opening, see also intended use statement following this paragraph), the package opening system comprising:
a cutter blade (“cutting wheel”, par. 0028) capable of cutting the sheet lid at an opening position where the sheet lid is cut and opened (par 0028);
a cutter blade mover configured to support the cutter blade (“electrically adjustable pedestal” par 0028), stick the cutter blade into the sheet lid (par 0032), and move the cutter blade stuck into the sheet lid in an annular cutting path along an entire at least part of a contour of an opening of the tub (par 0032);
Laro lacks the said cutter blade mover configured to support the cutter blade to move the cutter blade stuck into the sheet lid in an annular cutting path along an entire at least part of a contour of an opening of the tub with respect to the package which is stationary.
Song discloses an automated package opener and lid removal system in the same field of endeavor as the automated package opener and lid removal system of the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes a blade mover 18 configured to support a cutter blade 20 to move the cutter relative to a workpiece 14, (par 0049) and discloses that the cutter blade when stuck into a top of a work piece 14 (fig 5C) and that the mover moves the blade (20) in an annular cutting path along an entire at least part of a contour of an opening of the workpiece with respect to the workpiece which is stationary (par 0047), in order to cut a precision opening into a workpiece in a short amount of time and in an automated fashion (par 0004-0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laro by having the cutter blade mover configured to support the cutter blade to move the cutter blade stuck into the sheet lid in an annular cutting path along an entire at least part of a contour of an opening of the tub with respect to the package which is stationary, in order to to cut a precision opening into a workpiece in a short amount of time and in an automated fashion as taught in Song.
Laro lacks a lid holder including a plurality of suction nozzles configured to apply suction to and hold a top surface of the sheet lid, and configured to maintain in a constant posture a portion surrounded by the annular cutting path in the top surface of the sheet lid sucked and held by the nozzles during a cutting of the sheet lid by the cutter blade; and a lid holder mover supporting the lid holder, and configured to rotate, raise, and lower the lid holder such that the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid so as to not to hinder the cutting of the sheet lid by the cutting blade, the lid holder mover being separate from the cutter blade mover, wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that the lid holder is moved from and to the opening position in a top view, and wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that, when the cutter blade cuts a part of the annular cutting path other than an uncuttable part caused by the lid holder applying suction to and holding the portion of the sheet lid, the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid.
Walgo discloses a can opener, in the same field of endeavor as the can opener of Laro and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to include the can opener having: a lid holder (26, 27, 21, 24) including a suction cup (26) configured to apply suction to and hold a top surface of the sheet lid (“can end”, fig. 4), and configured to maintain in a constant posture a portion surrounded by the annular cutting path in the top surface of the sheet lid sucked and held by the nozzle during a cutting of the sheet lid by the cutter blade (col. 2 pg. 2, 10-45); and a lid holder mover (13) supporting the lid holder (fig 3-4), and configured to rotate, raise, and lower the lid holder (fig 1-2, since the raising involves pivoting/rotation) such that the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid so as to not to hinder the cutting of the sheet lid by the cutting blade (col. 2 pg. 2, 10-46), the lid holder mover being separate from a cutter blade mover (28; see fig 3), wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that the lid holder is moved from and to the opening position (fig 4, opening position being where the cup is placed onto the lid), in a top view, and wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that, when a cutter blade (15) cuts a part of the annular cutting path other than an uncuttable part caused by the lid holder applying suction to and holding the portion of the sheet lid (col 2, pg 2, 10-30), the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid (col. 2 pg. 2, 10-40); in order to remove the can top simultaneously when an end of cut is achieved and thus prevent the lid from falling in to the can after cutting is complete, col 1, pg 1, lines 20-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laro by having in order to a lid holder including a plurality of suction nozzles configured to apply suction to and hold a top surface of the sheet lid, and configured to maintain in a constant posture a portion surrounded by the annular cutting path in the top surface of the sheet lid sucked and held by the nozzles during a cutting of the sheet lid by the cutter blade; and a lid holder mover supporting the lid holder, and configured to rotate, raise, and lower the lid holder such that the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid so as to not to hinder the cutting of the sheet lid by the cutting blade, the lid holder mover being separate from the cutter blade mover, wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that the lid holder is moved from and to the opening position in a top view, and wherein the lid holder mover is configured to move the lid holder such that, when the cutter blade cuts a part of the annular cutting path other than an uncuttable part caused by the lid holder applying suction to and holding the portion of the sheet lid, the lid holder applies suction to and holds the portion of the sheet lid, in order to remove the can top simultaneously when an end of cut is achieved and thus prevent the lid from falling in to the can after cutting is complete, as taught by Walgo.
As modified above, the can opener of Laro includes a single suction cup, and thus Laro lacks the lid holder comprising a plurality of suction nozzles.
Sherri discloses that in a can opening and holding device that it is known to include a series of suction cups 58 for holding a can being cut during the cutting (col. 3, lines 10-25), and Taneja discloses that in a can opening and holding apparatus, it is known to have a can holding suction cup be connected to a vacuum and thus making the cup be a nozzle (fig. 8, and col 6, 50-65).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laro by replacing the single non vacuum connected suction cup of the device to being a multiple suction nozzle holding device in order to better grip the portion being cut during cutting since multiple suction cups instead of a single one, and the use of a vacuum to hold and release the portion being cut would make for a more secure holding function.
Regarding Claim 2, in Laro, the cutter blade mover (“electrically adjustable pedestal”) is an articulated robot (since a robot is defined as “a mechanism guided by automatic controls” see Merriam Websters dictionary and the electrically adjustable pedestal is electrically actuated/automated) including the cutter blade as an end effector (par 0032).
Regarding claim 4, modified Laro lacks a disposal receptacle for the lid, wherein the lid holder is configured to carry the portion of the lid toward the disposal receptacle when the held portion of the lid is separated from the tub.
Taneja discloses an electronic can opener, in the same field of endeavor as the electronic can opener of Laro and discloses that such a system includes a disposal receptacle (“trash container”) for the lid (Col. 6, 40-60), wherein a lid holding device 2RG carries the portion of the lid toward the disposal receptacle when the held portion of the lid is separated from the tub (col 6 lines 40-60) in order to.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laro by having the device thereof include a disposal receptacle for the lid, wherein the lid holder is configured to carry the portion of the lid toward the disposal device when the held portion of the lid is separated from the tub in order to allow the lid to be disposed of and to allow the holding device to work on further cans.
The limitation: “configured to carry the portion of the lid toward the disposal receptacle when the held portion of the lid is separated from the tub” is considered a statement of intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The only requirement is that the prior art reference be capable of said intended use. See MPEP 2114. In this case, the Laro device as modified over Brown and in view of Taneja is capable of performing the above cited functions as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 9, Laro lacks the lid holder mover configured for movement between a first position where the lid holder mover does not overlap the annular cutting path in the top view and a second position where the lid holder mover overlaps a limited part of the annular cutting path when the lid holder is positioned to apply suction to the sheet lid, and the cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the area of overlap along the annular cutting path when the lid holder mover is in the first position.
In Walgo, the lid holder mover 13 is configured for movement between a first position (See: fig. 2) where the lid holder mover 13 does not overlap the annular cutting path in the top view and a second position (fig 1) where the lid holder mover 13 overlaps a limited part of the annular cutting path when the lid holder is positioned to apply suction to the sheet lid (fig 1), and the cutter blade mover 28 is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the area of overlap along the annular cutting path when the lid holder mover is in the first position (fig 1 and col. 2, 1-15).
Thus, in modifying Laro to include the suction holder of Walgo, an artisan would also have included the lid holder mover being configured for movement between a first position where the lid holder mover does not overlap the annular cutting path in the top view and a second position where the lid holder mover overlaps a limited part of the annular cutting path when the lid holder is positioned to apply suction to the sheet lid, and the cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the area of overlap along the annular cutting path when the lid holder mover is in the first position in order to remove the can top simultaneously when an end of cut is achieved and thus prevent the lid from falling in to the can after cutting is complete, in the manner shown in Walgo.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Laro lacks the package opening system according to claim 1, further comprising a fixing device fixing the tub of the package at the opening position, wherein the cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the sheet lid of the stationary package fixed by the fixing device (Claim 11) and wherein the fixing device is a clamping device clamping and fixing the tub of the package (claim 12).
Song also discloses that the system thereof also includes a fixing device being a clamp for fixing the work during cutting (par 0041) and said cutter mover configured for the blade cutting the top of the work piece in a circular fashion while the work is fixed (par 0041 and par 0044), in order to removably attach the work to the base during cutting, see par 0041-0042.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laro by having the package opening system further comprise a fixing device fixing the tub of the package at the opening position, wherein the cutter blade mover is configured so that the cutter blade cuts the sheet lid of the stationary package fixed by the fixing device (Claim 11) and wherein the fixing device is a clamping device clamping and fixing the tub of the package (claim 12) in order to removably attach the work to the base during cutting as taught by Song.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/13/25, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s persuasively argue that the term opening position at the end of the claim has antecedent support in line five of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/13/25, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that: Laro lacks a cutting wheel being movable with respect to a workpiece while said work piece does not move. This is found persuasive. After an updated search, a new rejection is made in view of Laro in view of Song, Walgo, Sherri and Taneja.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 3079683 and 1242329 disclose cutters combined with gripping device, and thus each contain elements of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 5712724502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724