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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1,5-6 and 9-27 pending. Claims 19-23 are withdrawn. Claims 1,5-6,9-11,15 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
A limitation in claim 11 “the clamping arrangement including at least one clamp for clamping the barrel or barrels, each the at least one clamp being rotatable to rotate the barrel or barrels about its longitudinal axis and the clamping arrangement being operable to tilt the longitudinal axis of the barrel or barrels during rotation through at least about 20 degrees” appears to not further add to the limitation recited in claim 1 of “the shaft of at least one clamp of the pair of clamps being driven to rotate so as to rotate the clamp and to drive the barrel to rotate about its longitudinal axis and the clamping arrangement being operable to tilt the longitudinal axis of the barrel during rotation through at least about 20 degrees to either side of horizontal”, and it may be worth considering whether or not the limitation needs to remain in claim 11.
Claim 25 is noted to be dependent on canceled claim 7; the examiner will consider it to be dependent on claim 1 (in a similar manner to claim 9), consistent with the prosecution history of this application, however as noted in the paragraph below, the examiner considers claim 25 to be a substantial duplicate of claim 9).
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The examiner notes that claim 25 appears to cover the same/substantially the same scope of claim 9, with both claims dependent on claim 7.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“lifting facility” in claim 12, corresponding to lifting facility as described in the instant spec at [0039]
“clamp supporting structure” in claim 13, corresponding to the description in [0035-0037]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The 112(f) interpretation above for “clamp supporting structure” does not apply to claim 14 as claim 14 recites sufficient structure.
The 112(f) interpretation above for “lifting facility” does not apply to claim 24, as claim 24 recites sufficient structure.
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, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakeman (WO 2017185137 A1) in view of Sanchez (ES 2311350 A1) and Miyahara (JP H0640437 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. Fig. 1 (Blakeman)
With respect to claim 1, Blakeman discloses: An apparatus for cleaning, rejuvenating or treating internal surfaces of a timber wine or spirits barrel with an abrasive ([0003,0004, 0008]; examiner notes that the intended use recited in the preamble is not limiting-see MPEP 2111.02), the barrel comprising a pair of opposite and flat ends and comprising a longitudinal axis that extends through the flat ends (see barrel 1, fig. 1; with an axis extending between ends 6 and 3; fig. 1; [0040], the ends 6 and 3 have a flat cross section as in fig. 1, and in any case the prior art apparatus can interact with/hold in some manner barrels with flat ends, the barrel not being an explicit part of the invention but rather an article worked upon) the apparatus comprising a clamping arrangement that comprises a pair of clamps for clamping each flat end of the barrel (pair of wheels 40, figs. 1-2, [0026] together with wheels 50 and 58, [0028,0029], the examiner notes that this depends on the size of the barrel, which is not part of the claimed apparatus in claim 1; the clamps symmetrically disposed as to form a pair, see layout on fig. 2 where the clamps are found on both sides around a vertical line bisecting the barrel; see ann. fig. 1 above), at least one clamp of the pair of clamps being driven to rotate so as to drive the barrel to rotate about its longitudinal axis (using rotating system to drive rods 38, and the wheels 40, fig. 2; [0023-0026], the barrel rotates in [0037-0039]; furthermore the entire machine [including the clamps] can be externally driven, by an external device/force holding and rotating or tilting the entire machine, while the machine of Blakeman is holding the barrel, to cause the barrel to rotate around its longitudinal axis; see previously cited [0041-0042]) and the clamping arrangement being operable to tilt the longitudinal axis of the barrel during rotation through at least about 20 degrees to either side of horizontal (the barrel can be tilted with the clamping arrangement 30 degrees through pivot rod 7; [0041-0042], this the clamping system can operate in the position), however does not explicitly disclose each clamp having a shaft extending from a back of each clamp and generally coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the barrel and the shaft of at least one clamp of the pair of clamps being driven to rotate so as to rotate the clamp and to drive the barrel to rotate about its longitudinal axis; the apparatus further comprising a loading station at which an abrasive can be inserted into the barrel through a bung hole of the barrel, the loading station being operable to support the barrel with a bung hole of the barrel facing upwards, so that the abrasive can be inserted or added to the barrel through the bung hole.
Sanchez, in the same field of endeavor, as related to systems for cleaning/handling wood barrels teaches of a barrel system with a loading station at which an abrasive can be inserted into the barrel through a bung hole of the barrel (loading station 4, fig. 2; [0042,0049], supports 29, fig. 3, supporting barrels 3, fig. 1, this arrangement can facilitate the insertion of abrasive, or allow the user to manually load abrasive using an external device, and the claim does not structurally limit the loading station to require any specific structure to load abrasive in; this station is also provided for emptying the contents of the barrel through a [bung] hole 28, shown in fig. 1 as in [0051] using a hose), the loading station being operable to support the barrel with a bung hole of the barrel facing upwards (loading station supports barrels using supports 29, fig. 3 , [0049-0050], it is possible to load the barrel with the bung hole upwards, considering that the robot 13 needs to rotate the barrel so that the bung hole 28 faces down as in [0051,0054]) so that the abrasive can be inserted or added to the barrel through the bung hole (this can be done though an external device). Sanchez teaches that this arrangement allows small facilities to consolidate multiple stations that work on the barrel/clean the barrel in one location with improved productivity ([0007-0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the loading station of Sanchez to improve productivity by consolidation of multiple processes.
Miyahara related to devices for processing wooden barrels, teaches of a pair of clamps for rotating barrels (circular plates 28 and 29, fig. 3; [0014-0015]) each clamp having a shaft extending from a back of each clamp and generally coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the barrel (at 30, 31, fig. 3; [0014]) and the shaft of at least one clamp of the pair of clamps being driven to rotate so as to rotate the clamp and to drive the barrel to rotate about its longitudinal axis (through barrel rotation motor 35, fig.3; [0020], attached to the clamp and shaft, therefore rotating the clamp, [0015]) and the clamping arrangement being operable to tilt the longitudinal axis of the barrel during rotation through at least about 20 degrees to either side of horizontal (significant tilt described in [0023], and shown in fig. 4, although the examiner notes that the tilt angle is not explicitly described in Miyahara, this aspect is already found in Blakeman as the barrel can be tilted with the clamping arrangement 30 degrees through pivot rod 7; [0041-0042], in Blakeman, this the clamping system can operate in the position, and in either case the tilt in Miyahara appears to be much greater than 30 degrees [almost approaching 90 degrees] in fig. 4). Miyahara teaches that this arrangement provides for secure holding ([0014])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the clamp arrangement of Miyahara, in place of the roller arrangement, because said arrangement would secure at holding the barrel.
With respect to claim 6, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the pair of clamps being circular and an outer diameter of the pair of clamps at an edge or a perimeter of the pair of clamps is greater than a diameter of chimes of each flat end of the barrel
Miyahara, further teaches of a clamp for rotating barrels (circular plates 28 and 29, fig. 3; [0014-0015]), the clamp arrangement including a pair of clamps with an outer diameter larger than diameters of each end of the barrel (see size of plates 28, and 29 relative to barrels, with an appropriate cup 32 and 33, fig. 3 selected to fit the size of the barrel and attached to plates 28 and 29, as in [0014]). Miyahara teaches that this arrangement provides for secure holding ([0014])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the clamp arrangement of Miyahara, in place of the roller arrangement, because said arrangement would secure at holding the barrel.
With respect to claim 9, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach teaches one clamp of the pair of clamps being free to rotate within a bearing upon rotation of the barrel.
Miyahara, further teaches of a clamp for rotating barrels the clamp arrangement including plates (plates 28 and 29, fig. 3; [0014-0015]), with one end driven by a drive (35, fig. 3; [0015], for plate 29), and the other with a shaft supported by a bearing (“shaft of the other pressing plate 28 is supported on the slide table 23 by a rotary bearing”, [0015]), and the two plates [clamps], attached by a universal joint (universal joints 30, 31, fig. 3; [0014], clamp/plate 29 is attached to drive/motor 35 by a universal joint 31 as shown in fig. 3). Miyahara teaches that this arrangement provides for secure holding even if the barrel is slightly deformed ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the clamp arrangement with a universal joint attachment to a drive, supported by bearings, as taught by Miyahara, said arrangement would secure at holding the barrel, even if it is deformed. This would result in one of the pair of clamps being free to rotate within a bearing upon rotation of the barrel (Miyahara, “shaft of the other pressing plate 28 is supported on the slide table 23 by a rotary bearing”, [0015]).
With respect to claim 10, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach one or both clamps of the pair of clamps having a retracted position and an extended position, in which in the retracted position, the clamp is spaced from engagement with the flat end of the barrel and in the extended position, the clamp engages the end of the barrel.
Miyahara, further teaches of a clamp for rotating barrels the clamp arrangement including a retracted position (the tables that hold the clamp, 23 and 23, fig. 3; [0013], can be slid apart, and moved together through motor 25 and screw shaft 25) thus providing a retracted position, and an extended position, the clamp engages the end of the barrel when moved together. Miyahara teaches that this arrangement provides for secure holding even if the barrel is slightly deformed ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the clamp arrangement with a retracted position, as taught by Miyahara, said arrangement would secure at holding the barrel, even if it is deformed.
With respect to claim 11, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the apparatus further comprising the barrel or a pair of barrels being supported side-by-side on a barrel rack (Sanchez, loading station 4, fig. 2; [0042,0049], supports 29 [rack] , fig. 3, supporting barrels 3, fig. 1) and the clamping arrangement including at least one clamp for clamping the barrel or barrels, each the at least one clamp being rotatable to rotate the barrel or barrels about its longitudinal axis and the clamping arrangement being operable to tilt the longitudinal axis of the barrel or barrels during rotation through at least about 20 degrees (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, this feature is part of the pair of clamps, being tiltable 20 degrees, and it appears that this clause does not further add any limitations).
With respect to claim 12, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly teach the apparatus including a lifting facility to lift the barrel or the pair of barrels from being supported within the barrel rack, so that the barrel or barrels are elevated above the support position on the barrel rack prior to clamping.
Sanchez further teaches of a lifting facility to lift the barrel or plural barrels from being supported within the barrel rack, so that the barrel or [plural] barrels are elevated above the support position on the barrel rack prior to clamping (lift as a robot 13, fig. 1; [0046-0047]; the robot can lift barrels supported in the barrel rack as described in [0051]; before clamping in the abrading station of Blakeman, as it can move in a variable order according to[0016], meeting the functional limitations and thus a 112(f) equivalent). Sanchez teaches that this arrangement takes advantage of automation, improving productivity ([0010]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the lifting facility of Sanchez for the purpose of improving productivity.
With respect to claim 13, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the one or both clamps of the pair of clamps being supported in a clamp supporting structure and the clamp supporting structure being movable vertically so that it can move to position the clamp or clamps in a clamping position relative to a barrel from above or below the barrel (clamp supporting structure, 112(f) equivalent as frame, is Blakeman, 12, fig .1; [0020-0023], and can move/pivot vertically as it is supported by a pivot rod 76 which allows tilting relative to another frame 20, [0032, 0041-0042]; this arrangement can move to position the clamp or clamps in a clamping position relative to a barrel from above or below the barrel depending on how the barrel is loaded to the clamp)
With respect to claim 14, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 above, and further teaches the clamp supporting structure including a square or rectangular frame with the pair of clamps being mounted at opposite ends of the frame to oppose each other and to extend and retract within the frame (Blakeman, frame 12 is rectangular as in [0021], and the clamps mounted at opposite ends/halves of the frame, also see clamp arrangement in fig. 2 with clamps mounted at ends at top and bottom of the frame, relative to orientation of figure).
With respect to claim 15, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14 above, and further teaches the frame of the clamp supporting structure being rotatable about a second axis that extends laterally, to the longitudinal axis of the barrel clamped within the structure, and the frame being drivable about the second axis to tilt the barrel clamped within the clamp supporting structure (Blakeman, frame 12 is supported by a pivot rod 76 which allows tilting relative to another frame 20, [0032, 0041-0042], and as described by [0040-0042], this tilting is relative to the axis of the barrel to sand the ends of the barrel by tilting, the nature of the tilt would have an [second] axis of rotation, and therefore, the frame is drivable by the [second] axis of rotation, as it can move [claim does not require any specific drive structure, and is open to the driving being done manually, for example]).
With respect to claim 17, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach further including a washout station forming for introducing a liquid into the barrel to assist the discharge from within the barrel of the abrasive and liquid administered to the interior of the barrel and the debris removed from the internal surfaces of the barrel.
Sanchez further teaches of a washout station forming for introducing a liquid into the barrel to assist the discharge from within the barrel of the abrasive and liquid administered to the interior of the barrel and the debris removed from the internal surfaces of the barrel (station 11, fig. 2; described in [0062-0063], and including a stand 29, fig. 3 in which a liquid can be introduced into the barrel, and the barrel is discharged known means of transport, the introduced liquid can functionally be used to remove abrasive and liquid that was introduced into the barrel, for example at a later time). Sanchez teaches that this arrangement with many stages is efficient and flexible ([0069]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the washout station of Sanchez for the purpose of improving efficiency.
With respect to claim 18, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches the washout station including a support that supports the barrel in a manner that allows the barrel to be gently rocked or vibrated in order to promote travel of abrasive and debris towards the bung hole (Sanchez, stand 29, fig. 3, [0063] can enable barrel to be rocked or vibrated, for example by the user, claim does not require any rocking or vibrating mechanism).
With respect to claim 25, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 (interpreted to be dependent on claim 1) above, however does not explicitly teach one clamp of the pair of clamps being free to rotate within a bearing upon rotation of the barrel.
Miyahara, in the same filed of endeavor, related to devices for processing wooden barrels, teaches of a clamp for rotating barrels the clamp arrangement including plates (plates 28 and 29, fig. 3; [0014-0015]), with one end driven by a drive (35, fig. 3; [0015], for plate 29), and the other with a shaft supported by a bearing (“shaft of the other pressing plate 28 is supported on the slide table 23 by a rotary bearing”, [0015], the shaft would structurally be at a side of the clamp, the “back” side depending on the perspective). Miyahara teaches that this arrangement provides for secure holding of the barrel ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the clamp arrangement with a clamp supported by bearings, as taught by Miyahara, said arrangement would secure at holding the barrel.
Claim(s) 5, 24, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakeman (WO 2017185137 A1) in view of Sanchez (ES 2311350 A1) and Miyahara (JP H0640437 A) and further in view of Midgley (GB 2261213 A).
With respect to claim 5, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the pair of clamps having a clamping surface for clamping contact with each flat end of the barrel (Miyahara, see how the clamps at 28, 29, contact the barrel at its end), however does not explicitly teach the clamping surface including a resilient polymer material that resiliently compresses when pressed or pushed against each flat end of the barrel (examiner notes that the flat end of the barrel, as evidenced by instant claim 6 can include other shapes such as chimes).
Midgley, in the same filed of endeavor, related to processing wood barrels, teaches of providing a rubber holding surface (page 5 lines 2-5, referring to rubber rollers at 32, fig. 5). Midgley teaches that this adapts to the shape of the barrel (page 5 lines 2-5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the rubber surface arrangement of Midgley, for the purpose of adapting to the shape of the barrel, which would enable adaption to different barrels, with shape differences. The claim limitation of including a resilient polymer material that resiliently compresses when pressed or pushed against each flat end of the barrel, would be met as rubber is a polymer, and has elastic/resilient properties (which would be how it adapts to different barrel shapes).
With respect to claim 24, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, however does not explicitly teach the lifting facility including rollers for engaging a bottom or an underneath portion of the barrel or barrels, the rollers allowing the barrel or the pair of barrels to shift axially.
Midgley, in the same filed of endeavor, related to processing wood barrels, teaches of providing with a barrel lift, with rollers for engaging a bottom or an underneath portion of the barrel or pair of barrels, the rollers allowing the barrel or barrels to shift axially (rollers described on page 2 lines 24-36, and shown at 32, fig. 5, and further described on page 5 lines 1-15; the rollers would be able to engage directly/indirectly with a bottom of the barrel, and would allow rotation/axial movement as described by Midgley on page 2 lines 30-35). Midgley teaches that this enables secure lifting allowing rotation and maintaining the barrel in the correct orientation (page 2 lines 24-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the rollers of Midgley, as part of the lilting facility taught by Sanchez, for the purpose of secure lifting, maintenance of the barrel in the correct orientation, and rotation.
With respect to claim 26, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the apparatus including barrel support rollers for supporting the barrel prior to clamping by the clamping arrangement, the rollers allowing movement of the barrel in an axial direction.
Sanchez further teaches of a lift to lift the barrel from being supported within the barrel rack, so that the barrel is elevated above the support position on the barrel rack prior to clamping (lift as a robot 13, fig. 1; [0046-0047]; the robot can lift barrels supported in the barrel rack as described in [0051]; before clamping in the abrading station of Blakeman, as it can move in a variable order according to [0016]). Sanchez teaches that this arrangement takes advantage of automation, improving productivity ([0010]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the lift of Sanchez for the purpose of improving productivity.
Midgley, in the same filed of endeavor, related to processing wood barrels, teaches of providing with a barrel lift, with [support] rollers for engaging a bottom or an underneath portion of the barrel, the rollers allowing the barrel to move axially (rollers described on page 2 lines 24-36, and shown at 32, fig. 5, and further described on page 5 lines 1-15; the rollers would be able to engage directly/indirectly with a bottom of the barrel, and would allow rotation/axial movement as described by Midgley on page 2 lines 30-35). Midgley teaches that this enables secure lifting allowing rotation and maintaining the barrel in the correct orientation (page 2 lines 24-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman with the rollers of Midgley, as part of the lilting facility taught by Sanchez, for the purpose of secure lifting, maintenance of the barrel in the correct orientation, and rotation. This would have resulted in the apparatus including barrel support rollers for supporting a barrel prior to clamping by the clamping arrangement, the rollers allowing movement of the barrel in an axial direction, as part of the lift that moves the barrel to the abrading station before abrading.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakeman (WO 2017185137 A1) in view of Sanchez (ES 2311350 A1) and Miyahara (JP H0640437 A) and further in view of Conant (US 2845934 A).
With respect to claim 27, Blakeman, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the loading station including a liquid supply for adding liquid to the abrasive prior to the abrasive being fed into the barrel so that a liquid/abrasive mixture is fed into the barrel.
Blakeman, however discloses that it is necessary to use water to flush out any remaining wine from the barrel (Blakeman, [0043]), and Sanchez teaches that the barrel could be emptied through a hose at the loading station (Sanchez, the loading station provides for emptying the contents of the barrel through a [bung] hole 28, shown in fig. 1 as in [0051] using a hose).
Conant, in the same filed of endeavor, related to devices for processing wooden barrels, teaches of a combined liquid supply and air supply device with a liquid supply (24, fig. 1; col 2 lines 35-65, leading to a water tube 15) together with an air supply (col 2 line 72-col 3 line 8). This operates in connection with a suction to remove the fluid introduced (col 2 lines 15-33, using suction tube 16, fig. 1). Conrad teaches this enables complete drying of the barrel (col 4 lines 10-21), and solves the problem of the barrel not emptying by gravity (col 1 lines 24-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Blakeman to have the liquid supply taught by Conant, for the purpose of facilitating complete emptying of the barrel. This arrangement would he provided for a liquid supply for [functionally capable of] adding liquid to the abrasive prior to the abrasive being fed into the barrel so that a liquid/abrasive mixture is fed into the barrel, as the liquid can be added to an abrasive mixture [for example in a different container] using this before feeding into the barrel (the claim does not recite any structural relationship between the liquid supply and any abrasive supply source, does not require an abrasive supply source at the loading station, as the recitation in claim 1 only requires a loading station where abrasive can be added [in some unclaimed manner], and does not require any mechanism for feeding the abrasive into the barrel, which can be done with an external device, or by the user).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation, the applicant did not present specific arguments with respect to the interpretation, other than that the lack of “means for” demonstrates that there is no a rebuttable presumption that the language should be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The examiner has demonstrated, as noted in the 112(f) interoperation above, that the claims should be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), and the applicant has not provided any reason that a 35 USC 112(f0 interpretation is not appropriate. The examiner maintains the interpretation, as noted above, however the applicant is free to argue for a different interpretation, and should the claims be otherwise allowed, the applicant is allowed a post-allowance comment where the applicant is given a further opportunity to clarify the applicant’s position with respect to claim interpretation.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 (response pages 7-10), the applicant argues that the clamps in Blakeman are not do not meet the limitation of “clamps clamping each flat end of the barrel, each clamp having a shaft extending from a back of each clamp and generally coaxial with the longitudinal axis of the barrel and the shaft of at least one clamp of the pair of clamps being driven to rotate so as to rotate the clamp and to drive the barrel to rotate about its longitudinal axis”. As an initial note, the barrel is not claimed as an explicit part of the apparatus, but merely what the apparatus clamps. Furthermore, Miyahara (which was given a limited discussion in the last interview) provides the claimed features to include clamp plates that clamp a [flat] end of each barrel, and which rotates via a shaft that is coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the barrel (at the center of the plates at each end). This is to provide secure holding of the barrel.
No specific arguments were presented with respect to the other claims or the other references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights