DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I, II, and III share a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the art cited by the Examiner in the Unity of Invention Requirement. This is not found persuasive because the drum conveyor of claim 1, which is narrower than the drum conveyor of claim 14 that is the common technical feature shared across the three groups, is obvious over Stivani et al. (WO 2019/243928 A1) in view of Spiers et al. (US 2008/0006283 A1) and Klovstad (US 2014/0260717 A1) (see rejection of claim 1 below). Therefore, the shared technical feature across groups I, II, and III is not a special technical feature, as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn. Claims 5-9 and 11-13 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, "at least of 90 degrees" should be "at least 90 degrees";
In claim 12, "of the N/2 pusher" should be "of the N/2 pushers";
In claim 12, "according to one or more of the preceding claims" at the end of the claim should be removed (as the corresponding language was already removed from the beginning of the claim).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the elastic element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office action, “the elastic element” is interpreted as “an elastic element”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivani et al. (WO 2019/243928 A1, a copy of which was provided by applicant with IDS dated 11/21/2022) in view of Spiers et al. (US 2008/0006283 A1) and Klovstad (US 2014/0260717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stivani discloses a drum conveyor (“the numeral 1 denotes in its entirety a detection unit for the tobacco industry”, Fig. 1, Page 5, Lines 12-13) defining a drum rotational axis (“axis of rotation K1”, Fig. 1, Page 10, Lines 14-15) and an outer peripheral surface (outer surface of the drum conveyor), the drum conveyor comprising:
a first seat (one of the “carrier[s] 6 [which] has at least one receiving seat 6a”, Fig. 1, Page 10, Line 15) and a second seat (an adjacent one of the “carrier[s] 6 [which] has at least one receiving seat 6a”, Fig. 1, Page 10, Line 15), each of the first seat and the second seat being adapted to transport a rod-shaped article (“Each carrier 6 has at least one receiving seat 6a configured to receive and retain, preferably by suction, at least one article 3,” Fig. 1, Page 10, Lines 15-16), the first seat and the second seat being located at the outer peripheral surface of the drum conveyor (see Fig. 1).
Stivani discloses that the first and second seats are rotated by rotation means (“rotation means 7”, Fig. 1A, Page 11, Line 1) but does not explicitly disclose a first shaft and a second shaft, wherein the first shaft defines a first shaft longitudinal axis and the second shaft defines a second shaft longitudinal axis, the first shaft longitudinal axis and the second shaft longitudinal axis being substantially perpendicular to the drum rotational axis, the first seat being attached to the first shaft and the second seat being attached to the second shaft, so that a rotation of the first shaft around the first shaft longitudinal axis and a rotation of the second shaft around the second shaft longitudinal axis cause the first seat and the second seat to rotate; a pusher coupled with the first shaft and the second shaft by mechanical coupling, the pusher being adapted to linearly move along a pusher direction and engage with the first shaft and second shaft while moving; an actuator adapted to move the pusher along the pusher direction while the drum conveyor rotates around the drum rotational axis so as to rotate the first shaft and the second shaft and the attached first seat and second seat at the same time.
Spiers, in the same field of rotation means for rod shaped articles, teaches rotation means comprising:
a first shaft (“shaft 33”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023) and a second shaft (a “shaft 33”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023, corresponding to a different seat, where the seats are “flutes 30”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0023), wherein the first shaft defines a first shaft longitudinal axis (axis pointing into the page in Fig. 4) and the second shaft defines a second shaft longitudinal axis (corresponding axis pointing into the page in Fig. 4 for the second shaft) so that a rotation of the first shaft around the first shaft longitudinal axis and a rotation of the second shaft around the second shaft longitudinal axis causes the rod shaped article to rotate (rotating “tubes 10’”, ¶ 0023);
a pusher (“reciprocating rack 36” and the compartment within “flipping wheel 24” holding “reciprocating rack 36”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023) coupled with the first shaft by mechanical coupling (“pinion 34”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023), the pusher being adapted to linearly move along a pusher direction (top-to-bottom direction in Fig. 4) and engage with the first shaft while moving (¶ 0023); and
an actuator (“wheel 38”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023) adapted to move the pusher along the pusher direction (“the reciprocating action of rack 36 may be caused by a wheel 38 at one end of the rack”, ¶ 0023).
Spiers’s rotation means rotates the rod shaped article (¶ 0023) in a predictable manner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the rotation means of Stivani and Spiers are interchangeable and are capable of performing the same function of rotating a rod shaped article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drum conveyor disclosed by Stivani to substitute the first and second shafts, pusher, and actuator, as disclosed by Spiers, in place of the rotation means disclosed by Stivani (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
In the device of the combination, the first shaft longitudinal axis and the second shaft longitudinal axis will be substantially perpendicular to the drum rotational axis (as the shaft longitudinal axes are perpendicular to the planes of rotation, and the planes of rotation of the first and second seats of Stivani are parallel to the drum rotational axis, as seen in Fig. 1 of Stivani) and the first seat will be attached to the first shaft and the second seat will be attached to the second shaft (as the first and second seats will need to rotate to rotate the rod-shaped articles within the seats).
With regard to the pusher being coupled with the first shaft and the second shaft, while the first and second seats of Stivani rotate in different directions (“the articles are rotated by ±90°”, Page 20, Lines 16-17), Spiers only discloses rotation in a single direction, with the pusher of Spiers only coupled to one shaft (Fig. 4, ¶ 0023).
Klovstad is directed to machine components being controlled and constrained by moveable parts (¶ 0001 of Klovstad) and is, therefore, reasonably pertinent to the problem of rotating components within a machine. Klovstad discloses different shafts (“first and second spindles 194,196”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0029) coupled to a single pusher (“first rack 182a”, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ 0027) by mechanical coupling (“first pinion 184a” and “second pinion 184b”, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ 0027) such that rotation occurs in opposite directions (“when the rack 182a moves forward, the first pinion 184a is rotated counter-clockwise while the second pinion 184b rotates clockwise”, ¶ 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the first and second shafts in the device of the combination to a single pusher as taught by Klovstad such that the pusher engages with both the first and second shaft while moving and the actuator moves the pusher along the pusher direction while the drum conveyor rotates around the drum rotation axis so as to rotate the first shaft and the second shaft and the attached first seat and second seat at the same time so that first and second seats rotate in opposite directions, as required by Stivani.
Regarding claim 2, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the actuator comprises a cam (“wheel 38”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023), the cam pushing the push along the pusher direction (see Fig. 4) while the drum conveyor rotates around the drum rotational axis.
Regarding claim 3, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 2, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the device comprises a first wall (unlabeled, stationary wall in which “cam track 40” is situated, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a first wall as taught by Spiers at a side of the outer peripheral surface of the drum conveyor of Stivani so that the cam may follow a cam track. In the resulting configuration, the cam is defined by a portion of the first wall (“cam track 40”, ¶ 0023 of Spiers) and there will be a second wall (any of the walls on the opposite side of the outer peripheral surface of the drum conveyor than the first wall) located on an opposite side of the outer peripheral surface as the first wall.
Regarding claim 4, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 3, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the first wall is stationary (wall is stationary and the actuator moves along the wall, see Fig. 4 of Spiers).
Regarding claim 5, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the pusher comprises a first end (bottom end in Fig. 4) and a second end (top end in Fig. 4), and the first end of the pusher is adapted to engage with the actuator (“The reciprocating action of rack 36 may be caused by a wheel 38 at one end of the rack traveling along a cam track 40”, ¶ 0023 of Spiers).
Regarding claim 8, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the pusher is telescopic and comprises an inner tubular element (“reciprocating rack 36”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023) and an outer tubular element (compartment within “flipping wheel 24” holding “reciprocating rack 36”, Fig. 4), the inner tubular element being slidable in the outer tubular element along the pusher direction (“reciprocating rack 36” in Fig. 4 slides along the wall of the compartment within “flipping wheel 24”, ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the mechanical coupling between the first and second shafts and the pusher comprises a rack and pinion (“reciprocating rack 36” and “pinion 34”, ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 9, as discussed above. Klovstad further discloses wherein the pusher comprises a first rack (top half of “rack 182a”, Fig. 1) and a second rack (bottom half of “rack 182a”, Fig. 1), and the first shaft comprises a first pinion (“first pinion 184a”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0027) and the second shaft comprises a second pinion (“second pinion 184b”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0027), the pusher being positioned so that the first rack engages with the first pinion and the second rack engages with the second pinion (¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 11, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. Stivani further discloses wherein the first seat and the second seat rotate at least 90 degrees (“the articles are rotated by ±90°”, Page 20, Lines 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the pusher in the device of the combination such that the linear movement of the pusher defines an amplitude and wherein the amplitude is so selected that the first seat and the second seat rotate at least 90 degrees in order to rotate the first and second seat by the required amount.
Regarding claim 12, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above, in the device of the combination each seat is connected to a corresponding shaft and a single pusher is connected to two shafts. Therefore, in the device of the combination, the device will comprise a plurality of N seats and a plurality of N shafts, and N/2 pushers, wherein each k-th, where k = 1 ... N/2, pusher of the N/2 pushers is coupled to two nearest neighbour shafts (i, i+1), where i= 1, 3, 5 ...N-1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivani et al. (WO 2019/243928 A1) in view of Spiers et al. (US 2008/0006283 A1) and Klovstad (US 2014/0260717 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berlin (US 4,630,466).
Regarding claim 6, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Spiers does not disclose wherein the pusher is provided with an elastic element.
Berlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that pushers may be provided with an elastic element (“torsion spring 49”, Fig. 1, Col. 7, Line 23). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using an elastic element in that it allows the actuator to bias against the cam which allows for smoother movement (“A torsion spring 49 (see FIG. 1) is provided on each shaft 44 outwardly of the respective carrier 21 to bias the corresponding roller follower 47 against the cam 48 on the respective bearing 17”, Col. 7, Lines 23-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the pusher of Spiers with an elastic element as taught by Berlin in order to obtain this benefit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stivani et al. (WO 2019/243928 A1) in view of Spiers et al. (US 2008/0006283 A1) and Klovstad (US 2014/0260717 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Berlin (US 4,630,466).
Regarding claim 7, Stivani in view of Spiers and Klovstad discloses the drum conveyor according to claim 5, as discussed above. Spiers further discloses wherein the actuator comprises a cam (“wheel 38”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0023), the cam pushing the pusher along the pusher direction (see Fig. 4) while the drum conveyor rotates around the drum rotational axis. However, Spiers does not disclose wherein the pusher is provided with an elastic element.
Berlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that pushers may be provided with an elastic element (“torsion spring 49”, Fig. 1, Col. 7, Line 23). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using an elastic element in that it allows the actuator to bias against the cam which allows for smoother movement (“A torsion spring 49 (see FIG. 1) is provided on each shaft 44 outwardly of the respective carrier 21 to bias the corresponding roller follower 47 against the cam 48 on the respective bearing 17”, Col. 7, Lines 23-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the pusher of Spiers with an elastic element as taught by Berlin in order to obtain this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the elastic element is adapted to bias the pusher towards the cam for maintaining a contact between the pusher and the cam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747