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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE20 2021 106 103.0, filed on 11/09/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The Abstract filed on 11/09/2022 exceeds the 150 word limit.
Correction is required.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
“conveying means” in Claims 1, 5, and 10
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:
“adjusting device” in Claims 1 and 10
The generic placeholder is “adjusting device” and the functional language attributed the “adjusting device” includes: “for transverse adjustment of the at least one middle support”.
“folding device” in Claims 7-9
The generic placeholder is “folding device” and the functional language attributed the “folding device” includes: “is provided for displacing” in claim 7, “configured such that, before or during the movement” in claim 8, and “configured such that the folding elements” in claim 9.
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.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 11/09/2022.
Regarding the conveying means, Para. 0032, “in each of which a conveying means, in particular in the form of a revolving chain or a revolving region, has.”, where the conveying means is assumed to cover a revolving chain or revolving region
Regarding the adjusting device, Para. 0037, “Suitable adjusting devices for adjusting the transport bar 38 and/or the middle support 50 in the transverse direction 48 are, for example, threaded spindles or toothed racks extending in the transverse direction which are known from the prior art.”, where the adjusting device is assumed to cover threaded spindles or tooth racks or other similar actuating mechanisms
Regarding the folding device, corresponding structure was unable to be found within the specification; the specification also stated that the folding device is not shown in the figures; for the purposes of substantive examination, the folding device is assumed to be any device capable of exerting force on the folding elements
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.
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.
Claims 7-9 includes the claim limitation “folding device” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient disclosure for performing the claimed function as there is no structure for the folding device and it is unclear how the folding device is able to displace the folding elements. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ersa (DE 202006000087 U1) in view of Kipping et al. (DE 102006020924 A1, hereinafter Kipping).
Regarding claim 1, Ersa discloses a transport system for transporting material to be soldered through a soldering apparatus (Page 1, Para. 2-3, “a transport device for transporting printed circuit boards in heat treatment processes according to the preamble of claim 8. at the heat treatment, especially in industrial machine-controlled soldering processes”),
with at least one transport track extending in the transport direction in which the material to be soldered is transportable in a transport plane in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the transport track extending in the transport direction or the horizontal axis is shown; where the material to be soldered is transported on the carriers 5, Page 5, Para. 5, “carrier 05 in return position. The carrier has a support bracket 01 according to 1 on that at the fixture 06 is rotatably mounted with its ends.”, and Page 2, Para. 5, “a carrier for one Transport device for transporting printed circuit boards”),
wherein the transport track comprises two transport bars extending in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where three transport bars are shown to be extending in the transport direction or horizontal axis) and at least one middle support with a middle bar extending in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the middle support is shown with the middle bar, which would be the holding device 6; Claim 2, “support ( 05 ) a holding device ( 06 )”, where this holding bar extends along the horizontal axis), wherein the middle bar has a revolving conveying means (Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”) with folding elements (Page 5, Para. 5, “The carrier has a support bracket 01 according to 1 on that at the fixture 06 is rotatably mounted with its ends.”),
wherein the conveying means provides a feed in the transport direction and a return counter to the transport direction (Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”, where the upper half moves in one direction for feeding and the lower half moves in the opposite direction for returning), and wherein the folding elements are displaceable between a support position and a folded position (Claim 1, “characterized in that the support ( 05 ) Is fixable at least in a defined support position and in a defined return position.”, where the two positions are shown in Fig. 2 and 3), and
transverse adjustment of the at least one middle support in a transverse direction running transversely to the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the transport direction is along the horizontal axis, where the folding elements can be moved between the vertical and horizontal axes, where when moving the folding elements between the two positions would create a transverse adjustment of a component of the middle support and therefore also adjust the middle support),
characterized in that a distance A between an underside of at least one transport bar facing away from the transport plane and the transport plane is smaller than a distance B between an upper side of the at least one middle support facing the transport plane and the transport plane (Modified Fig. 5, where the distance A is shown to be half of the width of the transport bar, where the distance B is between the middle of the width of the transport bar extending to the upper surface of the holder device 6, where the holder extends above the transport bar and would make the distance B be greater than the distance A), and
such that the middle support with folding elements is movable in the folded position in the transverse direction underneath the at least one transport bar (Modified Fig. 5, where the folded position is shown at the bottom configuration of the holder, where the folding element is horizontal and extends in the transverse perpendicular direction to the transport bar, where it is shown to be located underneath the top two transport tracks) into a parked position provided laterally next to the transport bar (Modified Fig. 5, where the parked position is shown at the upper configuration of the holder, where the folding element is vertical and is laterally next to the transport bar).
PNG
media_image1.png
632
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5, Ersa
Ersa does not disclose:
an adjusting device for transverse adjustment of the middle support;
that the adjustment device is designed to make the folding elements moveable.
However, Kipping discloses, in the similar field of transport devices (Abstract, “vehicle body has a transport and positioning unit for the component and several machining stations”), where an adjusting device can alter the position of an object at 90 degree angles (Page 3, Para .4 from end, “Preferably, however, a common drive is provided. Especially It is advantageous if the rotor and the swivel arm gear technology via a gearing coupled with each other. The wheels can by toothing, friction or belt coupled with each other.”, where the adjusting device would be the swivel arm gear, where multiple positions can be attained, Page 5, Para. 2, “effective Hebelarmlängen of rotor 22 and swivel arm 23 can produce the desired different trajectories, of which the 3a to 5d show three characteristic examples.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified all the middle supports with foldable elements between a vertical and horizontal position in Ersa to include an adjusting device to allow for control over the folding positions as taught by Kipping, where each middle support would have their own adjusting device being the swivel arm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a swivel arm connected to a rotary actuator that allows for the system to gain control over the positioning of the folding elements, as stated by Kipping, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “The Supply of energy and control commands to the transport and positioning takes place preferably from above the transport and positioning device via a arranged on the pivot arm in the axis of rotation rotary distributor.”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that the middle support is arranged in the parked position in the horizontal direction and/or in the vertical direction (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where the upper holder has the folding elements at the parked position in the vertical direction) at a distance (C, D) from the transport bar underneath which it is moved into the parked position (Ersa, Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”, where along the chain 11 at the turning point between the upper and lower half, the folding elements would be moved between the parked and folded positions; where the bottom transport bar in modified Fig. 5 is the bar underneath the middle support before it is moved into a parked position, where there is a separation distance between the middle support in the half of the chain 11 and the bottom transport bar).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that two or more transport tracks are provided (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where two transport tracks are shown), and a middle support is provided for each of the transport tracks (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where there are at least two middle supports provided for the bottom and middle transport tracks), wherein each of the middle supports is adjustable in the transverse direction with an adjusting device independently of the other middle support such that each of the middle supports can be moved into a parked position (Teaching from Kipping, Page 5, Para. 2, “effective Hebelarmlängen of rotor 22 and swivel arm 23 can produce the desired different trajectories, of which the 3a to 5d show three characteristic examples.”, where each middle support has their own swivel arm from the combined modified Ersa apparatus, where each adjusting swivel arm could adjust the folding element position).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that two or more transport tracks are provided (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where two transport tracks are shown), and a middle support is provided for each of the transport tracks (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where there are at least two middle supports provided for the bottom and middle transport tracks), wherein each of the middle supports is adjustable in the transverse direction with an adjusting device independently of the other middle support (Teaching from Kipping, Page 5, Para. 2, “effective Hebelarmlängen of rotor 22 and swivel arm 23 can produce the desired different trajectories, of which the 3a to 5d show three characteristic examples.”, where each middle support has their own swivel arm from the combined modified Ersa apparatus, where each adjusting swivel arm could adjust the folding element position) such that the individual middle supports are each provided in a separate transport track (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where the individual middle supports are provided on separate transports tracks, where there is an upper and lower transport track that have individual middle supports) or together in one of the two transport tracks for supporting the particular material to be soldered.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that two middle supports are provided (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where three middle supports are shown as examples, where more could be included), and the folding elements of the particular middle supports laterally contact the particular conveying means (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where the folding elements are shown, where the conveying means are shown as the chain 11, where the folding elements are laterally contacting their own rotating conveying means, where this contact is through the holder), wherein the folding elements of the two conveying means are each provided on sides facing away from one another or on sides facing one another of the two middle supports (Ersa, modified Fig. 5, where the folding elements are shown to be on the same side of the middle supports, where they would be on sides facing each other).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that, in the parked position, the folding elements are in the folded position in the feed and/or in the return (Ersa, Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”, and modified Fig. 5, where the parked position is the folding element at the upper half, where the folding elements go into the folded position at the return located at the lower half).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses characterized in that at least one folding device is provided for displacing the folding elements between the support position and the folded position (Teaching from Kipping, Page 3, Para. 4 from end, “Preferably, however, a common drive is provided. Especially It is advantageous if the rotor and the swivel arm gear technology via a gearing coupled with each other. The wheels can by toothing, friction or belt coupled with each other.”, where the folding device is the rotor that can displace the folding elements in the combined apparatus of modified Ersa through the swivel arm).
Regarding claim 10, Ersa discloses a soldering apparatus in which material to be soldered can be transported along a transport direction (Page 1, Para. 3, “industrial machine-controlled soldering processes, Circuit boards are regularly through process streets promoted. The promotion takes place mostly such that the circuit board from both sides easily accessible is.”), comprising
a transport system for transporting the material to be soldered through the soldering apparatus (Page 1, Para. 2-3, “a transport device for transporting printed circuit boards in heat treatment processes according to the preamble of claim 8. at the heat treatment, especially in industrial machine-controlled soldering processes”), with at least one transport track extending in the transport direction in which the material to be soldered is transportable in a transport plane in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the transport track extending in the transport direction or the horizontal axis is shown; where the material to be soldered is transported on the carriers 5, Page 5, Para. 5, “carrier 05 in return position. The carrier has a support bracket 01 according to 1 on that at the fixture 06 is rotatably mounted with its ends.”, and Page 2, Para. 5, “a carrier for one Transport device for transporting printed circuit boards”),
wherein the transport track comprises two transport bars extending in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where three transport bars are shown to be extending in the transport direction or horizontal axis) and at least one middle support with a middle bar extending in the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the middle support is shown with the middle bar, which would be the holding device 6; Claim 2, “support ( 05 ) a holding device ( 06 )”, where this holding bar extends along the horizontal axis), wherein the middle bar has a revolving conveying means (Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”) with folding elements (Page 5, Para. 5, “The carrier has a support bracket 01 according to 1 on that at the fixture 06 is rotatably mounted with its ends.”),
wherein the conveying means provides a feed in the transport direction and a return counter to the transport direction (Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “The chain 11 can be imagined as an endless chain that runs in the upper half in one direction and in the lower half in the opposite direction.”, where the upper half moves in one direction for feeding and the lower half moves in the opposite direction for returning), and wherein the folding elements are displaceable between a support position and a folded position (Claim 1, “characterized in that the support ( 05 ) Is fixable at least in a defined support position and in a defined return position.”, where the two positions are shown in Fig. 2 and 3), and
transverse adjustment of the at least one middle support in a transverse direction running transversely to the transport direction (Modified Fig. 5, where the transport direction is along the horizontal axis, where the folding elements can be moved between the vertical and horizontal axes, where when moving the folding elements between the two positions would create a transverse adjustment of a component of the middle support and therefore also adjust the middle support),
characterized in that a distance A between an underside of at least one transport bar facing away from the transport plane and the transport plane is smaller than a distance B between an upper side of the at least one middle support facing the transport plane and the transport plane (Modified Fig. 5, where the distance A is shown to be half of the width of the transport bar, where the distance B is between the middle of the width of the transport bar extending to the upper surface of the holder device 6, where the holder extends above the transport bar and would make the distance B be greater than the distance A), and
such that the middle support with folding elements is movable in the folded position in the transverse direction underneath the at least one transport bar (Modified Fig. 5, where the folded position is shown at the bottom configuration of the holder, where the folding element is horizontal and extends in the transverse perpendicular direction to the transport bar, where it is shown to be located underneath the top two transport tracks) into a parked position provided laterally next to the transport bar (Modified Fig. 5, where the parked position is shown at the upper configuration of the holder, where the folding element is vertical and is laterally next to the transport bar).
Ersa does not disclose:
with an adjusting device for transverse adjustment of the middle support;
that the adjustment device is designed to make the folding element moveable.
However, Kipping discloses, in the similar field of transport devices (Abstract, “vehicle body has a transport and positioning unit for the component and several machining stations”), where an adjusting device can alter the position of an object at 90 degree angles (Page 3, Para .4 from end, “Preferably, however, a common drive is provided. Especially It is advantageous if the rotor and the swivel arm gear technology via a gearing coupled with each other. The wheels can by toothing, friction or belt coupled with each other.”, where the adjusting device would be the swivel arm gear, where multiple positions can be attained, Page 5, Para. 2, “effective Hebelarmlängen of rotor 22 and swivel arm 23 can produce the desired different trajectories, of which the 3a to 5d show three characteristic examples.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified all the middle supports with foldable elements between a vertical and horizontal position in Ersa to include an adjusting device to allow for control over the folding positions as taught by Kipping, where each middle support would have their own adjusting device being the swivel arm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a swivel arm connected to a rotary actuator that allows for the system to gain control over the positioning of the folding elements, as stated by Kipping, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “The Supply of energy and control commands to the transport and positioning takes place preferably from above the transport and positioning device via a arranged on the pivot arm in the axis of rotation rotary distributor.”.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ersa (DE 202006000087 U1) in view of Kipping et al. (DE 102006020924 A1, hereinafter Kipping) in further view of Russell et al. (US 4330288 A1, hereinafter Russell).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Modified Ersa does not disclose:
characterized in that the at least one folding device is configured such that, before or during the movement of the at least one middle support into the parked position, the folding elements are in the folded position at least in the feed.
However, Russell discloses, in the similar field of conveyor systems (Section 1, lines 36-37, “a new and improved packaging machine which preferably is of the continuous motion type”), where the holder is capable of folding and where before being in a parked position, the holder is folded in the feed (Modified Fig. 2, where the holder is shown to be folded before entering the feed, where holder turns into the parked position during the feed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary actuator and swivel arm with the folding elements in modified Ersa to be controlled so that the holder is folded when entering the feed as taught by Russell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow the holder to engage with the substrate that it is transporting, as stated by Russell, Section 7, lines 32-40, “Only one roller 73, 75 of any given paddle assembly 44 is disposed in one of the cam tracks 56, 57 at any given time and, when one of the rollers is so disposed, certain portions of the track 56, 57 cause the adjacent arm 72, 74 to rock and to turn the housing 71 about the pivot shaft 60. Such turning causes the paddle assemblies 44 to duck into and withdraw • from the pouches 21 in a manner to be explained subsequently.”, where being able to duck into the pouch would allow for the holder to engage with the substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Russell
Regarding claim 9, modified Ersa teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Modified Ersa does not disclose:
characterized in that the at least one folding device is configured such that the folding elements are in the folded position in the return.
However, Russell discloses, in the similar field of conveyor systems (Section 1, lines 36-37, “a new and improved packaging machine which preferably is of the continuous motion type”), where the holder is capable of folding and being in the folded position in the return (Modified Fig. 2, where the holder is shown to be folded after leaving the feed and being in the return, where holder turns into the parked position during the feed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary actuator and swivel arm with the folding elements in modified Ersa to be controlled so that the holder is folded when leaving the feed and being in the return as taught by Russell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to allow the holder to disengage with the substrate that it is transporting, as stated by Russell, Section 7, lines 32-40, “Only one roller 73, 75 of any given paddle assembly 44 is disposed in one of the cam tracks 56, 57 at any given time and, when one of the rollers is so disposed, certain portions of the track 56, 57 cause the adjacent arm 72, 74 to rock and to turn the housing 71 about the pivot shaft 60. Such turning causes the paddle assemblies 44 to duck into and withdraw • from the pouches 21 in a manner to be explained subsequently.”, where being able to withdraw from the pouch would allow for the holder to disengage with the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitzinger (EP 3318830 A1) discloses a similar endless conveyor system, however the use of transporting materials for soldering is not disclosed. Erdmann (US 6491204 B1) discloses a similar rotary actuator, however a adjusting device coupled to the folding device is not disclosed. Duke (US 5261520 A1) discloses a similar endless conveyor system with holders changing folded angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
09/05/2025