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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Best (U.S. Patent No. 3,742,677).
Regarding claim 1: Best discloses a method for combining a plurality of articles via at least one packaging material to form a pack, comprising:
forming an article group from the plurality of articles (Fig. 1; via groped articles C) to form a pack (via the shown different grouped C) and
temporally following the forming step, applying, with at least one manipulator (via 36 & 38), at least one packaging material (Figs. 1-2; via applying carriers 15) to the article group to form a pack (C), wherein the at least one manipulator (via 36 & 38) is a component of at least one working module (via module of applying mechanism 12 and/or the traction module or device 10), and
while the at least one manipulator is applying the at least one packaging material to the article group, contacting at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) with a rear side of the article group with respect to a direction of movement of the article group, see for example (Fig. 1; via 11 pushing grouped articles C) and slidably pushes the article group along a transfer plate or along a support surface (Fig. 1; via 11 along conveyor 10);
wherein the at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) is guided along a circulating movement path by an endless traction device (via conveyor 10) operating in sections above or in a vertical direction above a periphery of the at least one working module (via 11 above working module 10), defined by a carrying construction or supporting construction, see for example (Fig. 1; via 11 seems to be operating in a vertical direction above the carrying construction 10), and/or (Fig. 1; via the top shown mechanism with cams 36/38 appears to be applying some type of pushing mechanism from “above” and moving along with the containers while applying the grids to the top of containers C); such that the supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) is brought into contact with the rear side of the article group along the circulating movement path (via circulation of conveyor 10), and then is in continuous contact with the rear side of the article group (via groups C) while the at least one manipulator (36 & 38) is applying the at least one packaging material, see for example (Fig. 1; via packing material 15 applied to groups C while being pushed by pusher 11).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the endless traction device (36/38) is guided inaccessibly from the outside through an enclosure or is guided inaccessibly from the outside through a channel, see for example (Fig. 3-4; via the shown channels or path of 36).
Regarding claim 7: further comprising providing at least one first manipulator (Fig. 2; via the shown first gripper 26) and at least one second manipulator (via other grippers 26), wherein: the at least one first manipulator and the at least one second manipulator (via multiple of grippers 26) cooperate to apply a plurality of different packaging materials (via different packing 15) to the article group (via groups C), or wherein: the at least one first manipulator and the at least one second manipulator (via 26) are assigned different article groups (Fig. 2; via operated upon different set of grouped C), such that the at least one first manipulator applies at least one packaging material (via 15) to first article groups contacted at a rear side of the article group by at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (Fig. 1; appears like while ending of applied packing material to one group, the other is starting; using pusher 11) and wherein the at least one second manipulator applies at least one packaging material (via 15) to second article groups contacted at a rear side of the article group by at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via pusher 11).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best (U.S. Patent No. 3,742,677).
Regarding claim 1: Best discloses a method for combining a plurality of articles via at least one packaging material to form a pack, comprising:
forming an article group from the plurality of articles (Fig. 1; via groped articles C) to form a pack (via the shown different grouped C) and
temporally following the forming step, applying, with at least one manipulator (via 36 & 38), at least one packaging material (Figs. 1-2; via applying carriers 15) to the article group to form a pack (C), wherein the at least one manipulator (via 36 & 38) is a component of at least one working module (via module of applying mechanism 12 and/or the traction module or device 10), and
while the at least one manipulator is applying the at least one packaging material to the article group, contacting at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) with a rear side of the article group with respect to a direction of movement of the article group, see for example (Fig. 1; via 11 pushing grouped articles C) and slidably pushes the article group along a transfer plate or along a support surface (Fig. 1; via 11 along conveyor 10);
wherein the at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) is guided along a circulating movement path by an endless traction device (via conveyor 10) so that the supporting beam or pushing beam (via 11) is brought into contact with the rear side of the article group along the circulating movement path (via circulation of conveyor 10), and then is in continuous contact with the rear side of the article group (via groups C) while the at least one manipulator (36 & 38) is applying the at least one packaging material, see for example (Fig. 1; via packing material 15 applied to groups C while being pushed by pusher 11).
In case it is not clear to Applicant that Best discloses the amended claim referring to the at least one endless traction device operates in sections above or in a vertical direction above the periphery of the at least one working module, defined by the carrying construction or supporting construction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Aplciant’s claimed invention to have modified Best’s arrangements to have the pushing means (via 10) to be guided along a circulating movement path in vertical direction above the periphery of the working module 12 of the manipulators 36/38, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6: Best discloses that the endless traction device (36/38) is guided inaccessibly from the outside through an enclosure or is guided inaccessibly from the outside through a channel, see for example (Fig. 3-4; via the shown channels or path of 36).
Regarding claim 7: Best further comprising providing at least one first manipulator (Fig. 2; via the shown first gripper 26) and at least one second manipulator (via other grippers 26), wherein: the at least one first manipulator and the at least one second manipulator (via multiple of grippers 26) cooperate to apply a plurality of different packaging materials (via different packing 15) to the article group (via groups C), or wherein: the at least one first manipulator and the at least one second manipulator (via 26) are assigned different article groups (Fig. 2; via operated upon different set of grouped C), such that the at least one first manipulator applies at least one packaging material (via 15) to first article groups contacted at a rear side of the article group by at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (Fig. 1; appears like while ending of applied packing material to one group, the other is starting; using pusher 11) and wherein the at least one second manipulator applies at least one packaging material (via 15) to second article groups contacted at a rear side of the article group by at least one supporting beam or pushing beam (via pusher 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added and modified claimed limitations.
The Office as set forth above, giving the claims the broadest reasonable meaning still believes the applied art of Best ‘677 suggest the amended claims referring to the “pushing beam” guided along an endless “traction device” operating in sections above or in a vertical direction above a carrying construction or supporting construction, see for example (Fig. 1; via pushers 11 guided along and above endless belt 10, operating “in sections” in a vertical direction in a carrying construction via 11 extended vertically in carrier 10) and/or the as explained above just argued upon orientation of elements would be nothing more than a design choice to be made.
Further, as set forth above the Office continue to believe that since the applied art ‘677 suggests the claimed steps and elements, only might be missing an exact arrangement of the parts or steps, specifically on having the pushing mechanism which is controlling the pushing bar to be positioned above the containers or above the working module of the manipulators, such arrangements would be nothing more than a design choice to be made and/or re-arranging of parts matter.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights